universal declaration of human rights case study

The document that redefined humanity: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 75

In this section.

• Changing the narrative on women’s leadership
• After an attempted assassination, how to turn back a rising tide of political threats and violence 
• The populism of self-destruction: How better policy can blunt the anti-clean energy backlash that threatens humanity’s future
• Public policy, values, and politics: Why so much depends on getting them right
• The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it
• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige
• Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Kathryn Sikkink and former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth tell the story of the document some scholars call humankind’s greatest achievement.

FEATURING Kathryn Sikkink AND KenNETH Roth

43 minutes and 10 seconds.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Kathryn Sikkink and former longtime Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth have spent years both studying the transformational effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and working on the ground to make its vision of a more just, equal world a reality. On December 10th, the world celebrated not only the annual Human Rights Day, but also the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, which some scholars consider to be the greatest achievement in the history of humankind. It was the first time representatives of the world community declared that every person on earth was entitled to the same rights as every other, without discrimination, and no matter the circumstances.

It was an achievement that was both historically radical—legal slavery in the United States had ended just 80 years earlier—and yet one which made perfect, urgent sense in the post-World-War-II context of a humanity whose collective conscience was still reeling at the horrors and inhumanity of conflict. Appalled by the dehumanization and mass slaughter of the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis along with Roma, homosexuals and other groups, by Japanese atrocities including 2.7 million people murdered in Northern China alone, by the first use of atomic weapons, and by other acts of mass civilian killing, the world’s nations gathered to write a new definition of what it means to be human.

The result was the UDHR, which was drafted by a committee led by former U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. It was radical not just because it was so universal, but also because it was remarkably comprehensive—going far beyond basics like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It enumerated human rights to privacy, health, adequate housing, freedom from torture and slavery, the right to nationality, to take part in government, to work for equal pay, to have protection against unemployment, to unionize, to a decent standard of living, to rest and leisure, to enjoy culture, art, and science, and finally to a social and international order where the rights in the Declaration could be fully realized. Sikkink is a faculty affiliate of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS, where Roth just finished a senior fellowship. They  join PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli to explain how the UDHR has forever changed the way we think about our fellow human beings, and to suggest policies that will keep pushing the global community toward a more just, fair, and compassionate world. 

Episode Notes:  

Kathryn Sikkink is the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a faculty affiliate of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Sikkink’s work centers on international norms and institutions, transnational advocacy networks, the impact of human rights law and policies, transitional justice, and the laws of war. She has written numerous books, including “The Hidden Face of Rights: Toward a Politics of Responsibilities,” “Evidence for Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century,” and “The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics,” which was awarded the Robert F. Kennedy Center Book Award and the Washington Office on Latin America/Duke University Human Rights Book Award. She holds an MA and a PhD from Columbia University and has been a Fulbright Scholar in Argentina and a Guggenheim fellow. She is a member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Kenneth Roth is the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world's leading international human rights organizations, which operates in more than 90 countries. Roth has been called  “the godfather of the human rights movement” for his role in changing the way rights violations were covered in the international media. He first learned about human rights abuses from his father, whose Jewish family ran a butchery near Frankfurt in Hitler’s Germany. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses, devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the United Nations. He was most recently a senior fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS.

Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an AB in Political Science from UCLA and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University. 

The co-producer of PolicyCast is Susan Hughes . Design and graphics support is provided by Lydia Rosenberg, Delane Meadows, and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team.  

For more information please visit our  webpage  or contact us at  [email protected] .

This episode is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts.

Preroll: PolicyCast explores evidence-based policy solutions to the big problems we’re facing in our society and our world. This podcast is a production of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

Intro (Kathryn Sikkink): I would first go back to the creation of the United Nations, which happened in 1945, where 50 countries of the world, the Allies, not the Axis powers, assembled in San Francisco and were creating this new international organization, a new charter. And there was a demand to get human rights into the UN Charter, and they succeeded in doing that. That was a demand led by NGOs that were present as consultants to the U.S. delegation to San Francisco, and it was led by small states, including the 20 Latin American states that were present there. First, they got human rights into the UN Charter, and then people realized we don't have a definition of human rights. But the charter did set up a human rights commission as one of the few specified commissions that the charter demanded. And that new human rights commission got to work. People, delegations arrived from around the world, and started trying to figure out a declaration, a definition of what we meant by human rights. 

Intro (Kenneth Roth): It began to change really with apartheid in South Africa, which was just such an outrageous system that it was hard to say, "Oh, this is just South Africa doing its own thing the way any sovereign would do." That was the opening for governments to start commenting on each other's practices. It got a further jump forward with the 1973 Pinochet coup, which was then very much led by exiles from Chile who would go to Geneva and talk about the torture, the disappearances, the executions under Pinochet. And that also generated global outrage. So, it was really a handful of situations that broke the ice, where governments suddenly were not just comfortable saying, "Oh, that's what governments do. That's sovereignty.”  

Intro (Ralph Ranalli): Some scholars and advocates consider it to be the greatest achievement in the history of humankind: a worldwide declaration made in 1948 that every human person on earth is entitled to the same rights as every other, without discrimination, and no matter the circumstances. It was an achievement that was both historically radical—legal slavery in the United States had ended just 80 years earlier—and yet one which made perfect, urgent sense in the post-World-War-II context of a world whose collective conscience was still reeling at the horrors and inhumanity of human conflict. Appalled by the dehumanization and mass slaughter of human beings in the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis along with Poles, Roma, homosexuals and other groups, by Japanese atrocities including 2.7 million people murdered in Northern China alone, by the first use of atomic weapons, and by other acts of mass civilian killing, the world’s nations gathered to write a new definition of what it means to be human. The result was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted by a committee led by former U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. It was radical not just for it being universal, but also for being comprehensive—going far beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to enumerating human rights to privacy, health, adequate housing, freedom from torture and slavery, the right to nationality, to take part in government, to work for equal pay, to have protection against unemployment, to unionize, to a decent standard of living, to rest and leisure, to enjoy culture, art, and science, and finally to a social and international order where the rights in the Declaration could be fully realized. Our guests today have spent years both studying the transformational effects of the UDHR in the world and worked on the ground to make its vision of a more just, equal world a reality. Kathryn Sikkink is the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the award-winning author of numerous books on rights and international law. Ken Roth is just wrapping up his term as a senior fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS and is the former longtime director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s leading human rights organizations which operates in 90 different countries around the world. They’re with me on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the UDHR to explain how it has changed forever the way we think about our fellow human beings.  

Ralph Ranalli: Ken, Kathryn, welcome to PolicyCast. 

Kenneth Roth: It's good to be here. 

Kathryn Sikkink: Thank you. 

Ralph Ranalli: So we're talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was created in 1948, and it marked the first time the world had a documented global agreement that declared all humans as free and equal regardless of sex, color, creed, religion, and other characteristics. It's been translated into over 500 languages, and it's widely recognized as having paved the way for the adoption of more than 70 human rights treaties around the globe. What were its origins? Kathryn, do you maybe want to start us off on this? 

Kathryn Sikkink: The Universal Declaration for Human Rights has its origins first in the interwar period, but especially after World War II. World War II made the issue of human rights on everyone's mind. We saw the terrible suffering and violence created by the absence of human rights in the world, and so, after World War II, scholars, diplomats, the NGOs and the general public were all committed to finally get human rights onto the world agenda and into international diplomacy. That was not only led by the great powers, like the United States and the United Kingdom, it was also led by many other countries in the world, including countries in Latin America. 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. I would just also say I think it's useful to see the Universal Declaration as part of this burst of standards setting that was very much, as Kathryn said, a response to the atrocities of the Second World War. So, within a few years, 1948, 1949, we saw not only the Universal Declaration but also the convention against genocide and the first four conventions of 1949 on the latter setting forth standards for the conduct of war. 

Ralph Ranalli: What was the feeling in that post-war period? Because you had the horrible revelations of the atrocities of the Holocaust, but also those committed by Japan in China, where millions of people were also killed. What was the atmosphere like that created this window where you could achieve something that was this sweeping and this unprecedented? 

Kathryn Sikkink: I would first go back to the creation of the United Nations, which happened in 1945, where 50 countries of the world, the Allies, not the Axis powers... World War II was still going on and still being finalized. So, these 50 countries assembled in San Francisco and were creating this new international organization, a new charter. And there was a demand to get human rights into the UN Charter, and they succeeded in doing that. That was a demand led by NGOs that were present as consultants to the US delegation to San Francisco, and it was led by small states, including the 20 Latin American states that were present there. 

First, they got human rights into the UN Charter, and then people realized we don't have a definition of human rights. But the charter did set up a human rights commission as one of the few specified commissions that the charter demanded. And that new human rights commission got to work. People, delegations arrived from around the world, and it started trying to figure out a declaration, a definition of what we meant by human rights. If I can just give one little example to give an idea of what was going on still, the representative from China was a man named P.C. Chang. He was in New York because his university had been closed when it was overrun by the Japanese, by the Japanese invasion of China. So, he happened to be at Columbia University, and the nationalist government realized he was there and appointed him to be a member of the Human Rights Commission. So we have to realize it was a time when people were having trouble traveling, and yet they persisted, meeting to try to hammer out this definition. So, there's a sense of urgency. I think, at the same time, as this was definitely still a post-war scenario, Europe was in terrible disarray, there was immense flows of refugees, reconstruction was barely underway. So, I think that has been the atmosphere of the time. 

Kenneth Roth: The only thing I would add to what Kathryn is saying is that the Charter does include the term human rights, but it actually means something a little bit different to what it's come to mean. That, I think, also reflects the limitations of the Universal Declaration in that, if you look to the Charter, it talks about promoting and encouraging respect for human rights. It doesn't use the terminology that today is associated with a bit of a tougher approach, which is protecting human rights. Promoting and encouraging sounds like every government's- 

Ralph Ranalli: Kind of aspirational? 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. Every government's supposed to do what's best, but it was still a very state-centric approach. You can see this really for the first two decades of the Universal Declaration because, if you go to the first of this United Nations Commission of Human Rights, its first task was to draft the Universal Declaration, but it then was the guardian of the Universal Declaration. What that meant was having nice, polite conversations about human rights and never naming any offender. That was the case for the first two decades because it was just encouraging, it was just promoting, and it was considered undiplomatic to name names. That's not what diplomats do. They don't say, "You, government X, are suppressing the rights of your people." They just say, "Wouldn't it be good if everybody respected human rights?" So, needless to say, that's not a very effective way of doing the job because, if nobody feels singled out if there's any pressure, they keep doing their own thing. But that was the product of the era, where, even though the UN Charter introduced the concept of human rights, the UN as a tribe of governments still gave priority to sovereignty. And it was really supposed to be the duty of each state to do what it was supposed to do within the realm of human rights, but not really the subject of pressure from others. They could talk about it generically but not talk about it in too concrete a way. That would still be deemed interference in the government's internal affairs. 

Ralph Ranalli: When did that change? You said it was the first two decades. I know Human Rights Watch, which you were the head of for a long time, was created in 1978 as Helsinki Watch to monitor the compliance with the Helsinki Accords specifically, especially in terms of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. When did that change, and what drove that change? 

Kenneth Roth: It began to change really with apartheid in South Africa, which was just such an outrageous system that it was hard to say, "Oh, this is just South Africa doing its own thing the way any sovereign would do." That was the opening for governments to start commenting on each other's practices. It got a further jump forward with the 1973 Pinochet coup, which was then very much led by exiles from Chile who would go to Geneva and talk about the torture, the disappearances, the executions under Pinochet. And that also generated global outrage. So, it was really a handful of situations that broke the ice, where governments suddenly were not just comfortable saying, "Oh, that's what governments do. That's sovereignty. Everybody figures out their own path to respect human rights." But you still heard from many governments, "To criticize them for their human rights record is to interfere with our internal affairs." 

I would say that that didn't really tip until the emergence of a series of human rights organizations that really pushed the envelope, and that, when it was just left up to governments, they still were fairly polite with each other. It was only the emergence of NGOs that were not going to play that game, that were not going to accept the definition of diplomatic as never criticizing a government, just sticking in the realm of generic statements. They really changed that, to the point that, today, you still get this defense. And we can talk about who are the worst perpetrators of this internal affairs defense. The norm at what is now the Human Rights Commission, which was transformed into the Human Rights Council, now the norm is to comment on the behavior of particular governments, but not universally. Even some of the supposed guardians of the Universal Declaration fall short in some very important respects. 

Kathryn Sikkink: Mm-hmm. If I could just get a little context around what Ken just said, first, this mention of the apartheid movement, of course the context there is decolonization. The world has gone from these 50 countries that were at San Francisco to today we have 143. Most of those new countries joined the UN via processes of decolonization. So, they brought new concerns and values, and one of them, of course, was demanding the end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. 

Then, secondly, about the point about Chile. We're talking about the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we're also talking about the 50th anniversary this year of the Chilean coup. And that was an issue. People say, "Well, why Chile? Why did Chile make such a difference?" It was an issue that the first world, the second world, and this new third world of decolonizing states could all agree on. The Soviet Union was worried about what happened to Salvador Allende and the electoral rocked socialism, but so were countries in Europe, and so very much were countries in the developing world. But once they broke the rules with Chile, they started naming countries by name in the UN Human Rights Commission. They started writing country reports in the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Then you couldn't go backwards again. You created a new set of practices that needed to be extended to all states. 

Kenneth Roth: Actually, if I could pick up on Kathryn's colonization and decolonization point, which is, I think, important because it was also the colonial process that laid behind this disinclination to name offender governments. Because, if you look at the world in 1948, at the time the Universal Declaration was drafted, who didn't want to talk about their human rights record? European governments that had colonies. Also, the U.S. government because of racism in the United States. So, some of the governments that today are seen as the big proponents of human rights were actually not going to get into the business of commenting on each other for fear of how they would come out in that process. It was the evolution of what today is known as the 193 members of the General Assembly. 

Kathryn Sikkink : Oh, I said 143. I'm sorry. 193. Yes, correct. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. 

Kenneth Roth: That includes, on the one hand, many former victims of colonization, but also we have to recognize still many abusive governments. So this idea that you don't comment on each other's human rights offenses still resonates with governments that are deeply into violating their people's human rights. The biggest proponent of maintaining that system today is China. The terminology has varied year to year. Sometimes, they talk about win-win strategies, where everybody promotes their own thing and it’s win-win. We're not going to be critical. We'll talk about cooperative efforts as opposed to pressure.  

The latest terminology from Xi Jinping is civilization. We should recognize that there are different civilizational paths to respect human rights. So there's the Chinese civilization that does its autocratic thing. Now, who defines what that Chinese civilization is? Not the people of China. They have no say. In fact, when the people of Hong Kong said, "We want nothing to do with Beijing's dictatorship," they were shut down. All the protests were ended. The national security law was imposed. But Xi Jinping, sitting there in Beijing, decides what Chinese civilization is and then says, "That's our route. Each government does their own thing. The UN should be promoting, not protecting human rights." That approach is still articulated, but it doesn't really resonate anymore. It's not the norm at all. And it now is de facto accepted that the UN Human Rights Council does regularly comment on governments' internal affairs—if you want to put it that way. 

But there are others who—even surprisingly—really will not criticize another government standing alone for the most part. Even though it's a democracy, but it just is stuck in this old-fashioned view that to each their own when it comes to respecting human rights. So that is still out there, something we still bump up against, but it has been discredited. And the main reason it's been discredited is because of the emergence of NGOs, of human rights organizations that are just not going to settle for this cheap governmental excuse to get away without pressure with human rights violations. 

Ralph Ranalli: Is there any, though, validity in any way to the criticism that the UDHR represents a fundamentally Western viewpoint? Because, Kathryn, you mentioned P.C. Chang from China. According to former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the chair of the drafting committee for the UDHR, one of Chang’s arguments was that there was more than one kind of reality, and that the committee should be studying Confucianism as well as Western moral thought. Now in the human rights discussion there are some people who suggest that perhaps maybe the countries of the Global North are imposing a certain definition of human rights on the Global South, who may not share those same values. What do you think about those arguments?  

Kathryn Sikkink: These debates go back to the debates within the committee that was drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It was a larger committee that included delegates from many countries around the world. But the five key people who were the core, really six key people who were the core drafting committee were, as Ralph just mentioned, Eleanor Roosevelt from the United States, René Cassin from France, and then these three other individuals from countries in the Global South. We said P.C. Chang. There was Charles Malik, who came from Lebanon, and there was Hernan Santa Cruz, who was from Chile. 

Each of them brought different perspectives. P.C. Chang did bring perspectives from the Confucian tradition into the discussion. Hernan Santa Cruz was really the person who insisted that both economic, social, and cultural rights and civil and political rights both be included in the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. And he persuaded the main staff person, John Humphrey, who was from Canada and who was a social democrat or a democratic socialist, to make sure that that happened. So already there was a wide participation.  

Now, of course, many, many countries, especially in Africa, were not yet decolonized. And so when they came into the system, they wanted to write new conventions. The second convention that was written, human rights convention that was entered into force after the genocide convention, was the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, what's called CERD. That's because these newly decolonized African countries or Caribbean countries were very worried about racial discrimination. They fast-forwarded to get that treaty to enter into effect before the two big covenants, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. So it shows that, when countries in the Global South were united around a theme, like racial discrimination, they really could put that at the center of the debate. 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. Let me maybe add to what Kathryn said. Kathryn described, I think, in drafting terms why the Universal Declaration really is universal. Let me look at this a bit more in operational terms, because I think one of the great legacies of the Declaration is that it did give rise to this global movement. Today, really in every country, you've got activists and groups that are trying to promote human rights. Even in places where it's oppressive for them to exist, they exist in exile. So, if you just look at this body of organizations that has emerged from the declaration, it underscores universality. That's not a doctrinal point, it's an operational point, it's a point of fact.  

Now, to put this another way, when I was at Human Rights Watch, I did a lot of traveling. It was part of the job, and I would be all over the world. I never met somebody who wanted to be executed. I never met somebody who wanted to be tortured or arbitrarily imprisoned, or discriminated against, or deprived of housing or education or healthcare. If you look at it in terms of what do people want, they want these things. So it's easy for some autocratic government to say, "Oh, no, we just want a dictator. I'm going to have all the solutions here." But, in fact, people want these rights. And that is the great refutation of those who claim that these are somehow Western in positions.  

Now, I think it's worth noting the three areas that are most contested, where you tend to hear this Western position point most frequently, have to do with women's rights, with the rights of sexual minorities, and with religious freedom. Again, the best refutation is to look at the people of the country. Take a place like Saudi Arabia. Now, some women may be perfectly happy subordinating themselves to their husbands—okay, that's their choice. But clearly, many Saudi women want a modern life. They want to be able to drive, they want to be able to travel without some male's permission. They want just basic freedoms. And it's not the West telling them to do that. Nobody's whispering in their ear and say, "Do this, do that." This is what they want. And the imposition is not a Western imposition. The imposition is by these conservative, retrograde leaders who want to maintain their patriarchal system.  

You can say the same thing about LGBT rights, where nobody's telling people to be gay. That's who they are. It's the local conservative hierarchy that is trying to prevent them from being who they are, from leading their lives. So, I find that this argument that it's the Western imposition a facile, easy defense by governments that are trying to avoid scrutiny, but it just doesn't match up with reality. These rights are not imposed, these rights are what people universally want. 

Kathryn Sikkink: One additional piece of evidence for that is, of course, the Universal Declaration got translated into all of these treaties, and then the treaties got ratified by many, many countries. So, the oddest thing is sometimes you have countries claiming that there's imposition, but then you say, "Well, but you ratified this treaty."  

People have done research. Beth Simmons and others have done research on this. There's really very little evidence that diplomats twisted the arms of countries in order to ratify human rights treaties. Now, there's some evidence that countries thought it was cheap talk. They thought they could ratify the treaties and there would be no costs. That was the case. General Pinochet himself and his inner circle ratified the Convention Against Torture, and that was the treaty that ended up getting him arrested in London. But the second point is that countries ratify, they voluntarily accept the obligations under these human rights treaties. 

Ralph Ranalli: What do you see as the major impediments to the advancement of this notion of universal human rights? Is it authoritarian nationalism? Is it just human tribalism? Is it neoliberal capitalism or economic Darwinism? What are the major roadblocks to a world where this notion of universal human rights advances even further? Ken, do you want to start with this one? 

Kenneth Roth: I guess I'll take that easy question on. 

Kathryn Sikkink: I'll start if you want me to. 

Kenneth Roth: Whatever. Either way. Go ahead. Sure, Kathryn, go ahead. 

Kathryn Sikkink: I would say first is, yeah, part of it is authoritarianism. We know that there's a direct correlation between authoritarian governments and bad human rights practices. And we know that authoritarian governments repress human rights because they want to stay in power. So they have a direct interest, they want to stay in power, they want to accumulate money, and they use repression as a tool to stay in power. So, yes, one big barrier in the world to human rights is that we have a lot of authoritarian governments and that the trend towards democratization has stalled. There was the third wave of democracy, and that brought a bunch of new countries into having better human rights practices, but that has now stalled. Unless we have a fourth wave of democracy, unless we restart the turn to democracy, human rights will not improve in the world, will not significantly improve in the world. That's the first thing I was saying.  

The second thing I was saying, it's not capitalism per se, because some of the worst human rights violations have occurred in non-capitalist societies. The Great Leap Forward in China, the terrible purges in the Soviet Union. Human rights violations have occurred in capitalist and non-capitalist societies. Now, we could say that some of the excesses, I would say some of the excesses of hyper-globalization in recent years have exacerbated some of the economic and social rights. But I would not say that capitalism per se is at the root of human rights violations. 

Kenneth Roth: Let me pick up with, first, I agree very much with what Kathryn said is the first cause. Autocrats, by definition, view human rights as a pain in the ass. They're an impediment to staying in power, and so they violate human rights to maintain all the great benefits of being in power, often corruption or just the prestige of it. So that's always going to be an obstacle, and there always needs pressure on these autocrats to change the calculation that leads it to be seen as beneficial to violate human rights. 

Second, I would put in terms of maybe the populist threat, which is often combined with autocrats, but is, I think, best understood analytically as distinct. What the populists typically do is to demonize some unpopular minority and therefore make the deprivation of their rights popular among... and often they're a religious majority in the country. And that challenges the basic idea of community that lies at the heart of human rights. If you think of why I should respect your human rights, it's because we're in the community and I recognize that, if they come from your rights today, they'll come from my rights tomorrow. That's the classic Kantian understanding of it. But, if you're able to define a community in exclusionary terms and to treat these immigrants, these Muslims, or these gays as somehow outside the community, it becomes easier to violate their rights because this kind of reciprocity that is often at the basis of respect for human rights is lost. So, I think that there has been a real determination on the part of populist leaders to narrow the national community, and that endangers human rights. 

Then the final thing I would note is that human rights need defense. If we go back to the origins of the Universal Declaration, with just each government to do their own thing, we're going to have an impoverished world when it comes to human rights. So you need not only non-governmental human rights groups but also governments themselves and UN officials and the like to be standing up for human rights consistently. When some of the major proponents of human rights have real double standards in the willingness to stand for human rights, it undermines the enterprise. It leaves the entire effort to defend human rights open to charges of hypocrisy.  

Clearly, the U.S. government is guilty of this. It's actively defending Israel to the point where it's bombarding Palestinian civilians in Gaza, but it tries to rally people to stand up for rights of Ukrainians when Russia bombards civilians there. That double standard doesn't work very well. People see through it.  

So, there's a need for much work in defensive human rights. Even some of the top UN officials. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, just gave his big Universal Declaration of Human Rights 75th anniversary speech, ran through a bunch of countries, and somehow didn't get around to China, which in my view is the biggest global threat to human rights today. This is an utter abdication of his responsibility. It is utter cowardice. I don't know what he's thinking. This is not just one speech or a mistake. He's been in office for well over a year and in this time has never condemned Beijing for the crimes against humanity, the mass persecution and detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. This is, in many ways, the most outrageous offense he faces, and he says nothing. Whether this is cowardice or some naive conception of what his quiet diplomacy will secure, it is nothing, I have no idea, but it is utterly shameful and it undermines this effort to defend human rights. 

Ralph Ranalli: Can we talk for a bit about what I see as the very complicated relationship between religion and human rights? On the one hand, I think it's fair to say that certain religious tenants, particularly universal ones, like the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—have deeply influenced the notion universal human rights. But then, if you look at some of the worst and most intractable conflicts in the world, a lot of them have a religious component to them. Jews and Muslims in Israel and Palestine, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. And that's not even to mention the suffering imposed on religious minorities around the world.  

And history has shown that there are invariably people in every faith who are going to say, "My god tells me that I have a right to take your land, or to deny you the right to be a citizen, or to keep certain rights and freedoms for myself and my group while denying them to you." But on the other hand, the UDHR says, "No. Human rights are universal and indivisible no matter what the circumstances are." Is religion in at least some ways antithetical to universal human rights? How do you solve for religion in the human rights equation? 

Kathryn Sikkink: First, I would begin by just going back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and say one of the most controversial issues in those debates was not that one has a right to have a religion but that one has a right to change their religion. That language went in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it led to some of the early abstentions or votes against the Universal Declaration. Then, later, there was an attempt right around the time we got the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, the CERD treaty, there was attempt to get a treaty on religious freedom, protecting religious freedom, and that treaty failed. It's one example of a human rights treaty that could not get through. So, it's a very contentious issue. 

Now, I would say not say that religion is a basis for human rights violations because there's also many examples of religious communities that were deeply involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. Back when I was a young human rights activist, when I first met Ken, and he knows the story well, the early human rights people were very involved with religious communities, missionaries, the World Council of Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference. They were committed to promoting human rights. So I want to go back to something Ken said earlier. The problem is not religion per se, the problem is dehumanization. Religious groups, when they dehumanize other religious groups, are a huge problem for human rights. But you don't have to be religious to dehumanize. Some of these populists Ken was talking about are not religious, but they are dehumanizing others. And this dehumanization, this exclusion of people, Ken used this word, you're excluding people from the realm of obligation. You think, "They're not worthy of being protected." That's the root, not religion, in my mind. 

Kenneth Roth: Let me just add to that. First off, Ralph, part of what you're describing as religious problems, they could be called ethnic problems as well. Israel-Palestine isn't really about religion. It's about two ethnic groups that are competing over the same land. It's not as if there's religious conviction here for the most part. There are parts on both sides who say, "Oh, yeah, this is our land. God said so." But, for the most part, it's an ethnic national conflict. And that is often true of things that are described in religious terms. But I think, as Kathryn said, religion often is an ally human rights because, if religion is trying to teach respect for the individual and a certain public morality, that often is quite compatible with human rights.  

But there are certain views of religion which go beyond saying, "Everybody can pray to their own god. Everybody is entitled to this basic religious freedom," to saying, "I get to impose my religious views on other people." That's where, as Kathryn was describing, the contested right to convert comes in. Why should I care if you change your religion? What does it have to do with me? I still have my freedom of religion, but some people want to impose their views than others. And this is also translated into restrictions on women, into restrictions on LBGT people, into a way of not just ordering one's own private beliefs but using self-declared religious beliefs and opposing those on others. So, this just gives the veneer of legitimacy to what is really no different from what autocrats do. It's an effort to dictate the way their society would operate without input from the people.  

Ralph Ranalli: We're at 75 years for the UDHR. What do you think would be the most appropriate way to celebrate it in terms of proposing policies—either national or international—that advance universal human rights? So I'd like your recommendations here for policies that would get us closer to this world where there's less conflict and more respect for rights that emerged as the UDHR vision 75 years ago. What would you both recommend?  

Kathryn Sikkink: Some of these things have already come up, but I want to start with one that sounds facile, maybe. But I truly believe in human rights education. I think one of the reasons the Universal Declaration for Human Rights has been so important is it's a wonderful tool for human rights education. I think it's important to have people study it, but also to teach them about its origins. Because then, if you talk about all the countries, all the people involved in creating it, that helps people understand that this belongs to all of us and that it came from many communities. 

Second, things we've already talked about, but let's put them in policy terms. We've already said that these authoritarian countries and leaders are a big problem for human rights. I've already said but I want to underscore here that we need to take up again this campaign for democracy. There was a time—and Ken and I both remember this—where there were human rights people to one side and democracy proponents to the other side during the Reagan administration. And I feel like, if we haven't put that behind us, we need to completely put that behind us. Promoting democracy helps promote human rights, and promoting human rights helps promote democracy. No one thinks democracy only means holding elections, right? There's a lot of authoritarians or very imperfect democracies out there that have elections but aren't truly democratic. So that's number one, I would say. It's very important to get democracy promotion that really geared up again. 

As a political scientist, I can tell you the single biggest factor that correlates with human rights violations is war. In particular, these big civil wars. So, once again, all the work that can be done to end wars. Then, of course, we get in a difficult situation, and that's that human rights were founded right after World War II, which was one of those necessary wars for human rights. So, sometimes, I think in relatively rare situations, people have to be willing to stand up and fight, including fight wars, to protect human rights. I categorize the Russia-Ukraine War in that way. It's my personal way, but I believe that what's going on in Israel-Palestine today, the only way that we can start protecting human rights is to have an end to that war as soon as possible. Again, that's my position. So I'll pass it on to Ken because I know he has lots of good suggestions. 

Ralph Ranalli: Ken, if you had your hands on the levers of policy power for one day, what would you accomplish? 

Kenneth Roth: Let me answer this in terms of, sure, we are celebrating the UDHR. Let me talk about appropriate and inappropriate celebrations as a way of trying to address this policy question. What I view as an inappropriate celebration is conversations which stay at the level of platitudes and never discuss governance. As if we just have these standards floating around in the air and we're not going to bother applying them. And that is such a disservice to what the UDHR has become. It may be true to the initial limited intent of the document, but it stands for so much more now.  

So I think that the way we celebrate this, we should, one, recognize the central role of non-government groups. They should be at those celebrations, and they should be protected. And it shouldn't just be governments clinking glasses of champagne with each other, but they should be rededicating themselves to protecting NGOs as essential for protecting human rights. The celebration should talk about violations and name names because that, in my view, is true to the real spirit of what the declaration has become, even if it wasn't what it was intended at first. And that's its strength. If you can't put pressure on particular governments, what's the point of this document? It's just an aspirational thing that sits there and is violated. 

Then I also think that, because of the importance of being universal, of not having double standards, this is an opportunity for governments that say they promote humanity as part of their foreign policy to dedicate themselves to doing so without double standards, and to really reexamine where they stand and stop defending the abuses of their allies and criticizing the abuses of their adversaries. That doesn't work very well; people see through that. So, I hope that we recognize that the universality is not simply a description of what people around the world want, but it also should be a description of what governments do in defense of the rights details in the Declaration. 

Ralph Ranalli: Great. This was a fascinating and informative conversation, and I'd really like to thank you both for being here. 

Kenneth Roth: Thank you for thinking of us. 

Kathryn Sikkink:  Yeah. It's our great pleasure to be here. 

Outro (Ralph Ranalli): Thanks for listening. If you want to read more about the transformational impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has compiled a collection of 90 short essays by scholars and experts at the Kennedy School and around Harvard. To read them online, please visit the Carr Center at carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu or our PolicyCast website at hks.harvard.edu/policycast. And if you want to keep hearing more about policy solutions to big world problems, please subscribe to PolicyCast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcasting app so you don’t miss any of our upcoming episodes. And until next time, from all of us here at the Kennedy School, remember to speak bravely, and listen generously. 

More from PolicyCast

The rising tide no one’s talking about—finding homes for millions of climate crisis migrants, the united states pays reparations every day—just not to black america, worldwide outrage over atrocities in ukraine is enabling a new era of international justice.

70 Years of Impact: Insights on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By Chandler Green on December 5, 2018

On December 10, the most translated document in the world – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR ) – turns 70 years old. While the declaration has established enduring human rights principles for everyone, everywhere and has become a central guiding force for the United Nations, the full reach and scope of its impact is often overlooked – or taken for granted.

We spoke with Andrew Gilmour , the UN’s Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, to better understand the history of the UDHR, how it advances human rights globally, and some of the biggest opportunities and challenges facing human rights today.

Can you briefly explain how World War II set the stage for the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948?

Andrew Gilmour: WWII remains the deadliest war in history. In response not only to the horrors of war and genocide, but also of the economic depression of the 1930s, this magnificent and noble document was agreed to in 1948. The impetus clearly came from a growing demand and a recognition by all countries that there needed to be some global commitment through a framework to prevent the atrocities that took place during the war as well as the terrible economic hardships before and after it. Thus, the UDHR was designed to cover the entire spectrum of human rights: civil and political, but also economic, social, and cultural.

What role did the US play in its creation?

  AG: The U.S., through Eleanor Roosevelt and others, played a pivotal role in the drafting of the UDHR as the Chair of the Commission on Human Rights from 1946 to 1951. She was in many ways the quintessential multilateralist, looking beyond her national interests and recognizing that certain values and interests transcend national agendas and are common to humanity. Despite the great momentum at the time, Eleanor Roo sevelt’s task was still by no means an easy one.

She had to lobby governments, and she had to make the case that certain rights are common to all countries – and this in a time when the world was still very polarized.  The USSR and other countries under Soviet influence were not in favor of the so-called “negative” rights, such as the ones where countries are called on to refrain from violating civil and political rights. Others, including those in the developing world, were concerned about the financial burden placed on governments to provide for “positive” economic, social, and cultural rights.

On the other hand, Western countries were much more focused on civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. In the end, Eleanor Roosevelt, on behalf of her country, managed to bring these divergent interests together to agree on a common standard. In this sense, the U.S. was instrumental to the creation of the UDHR.

How does the UDHR shape the work of the United Nations?

AG: The UDHR guides much of the work of the organization. The rights contained in it relate to all three pillars of the United Nations: peace and security, development, and human rights. We simply cannot have peace and security without some of the basic fundamental freedoms that are enshrined in the UDHR, such as the right to life, security, and liberty of the person, but equally we cannot have development without the right to health or the right to education, for instance. Principles of non-discrimination and equality are fundamental to the work of the UN.

The promise of, and commitment to, global sustainable development – especially the call that no one should be left behind, starting with those furthest behind – is a rights agenda. It is a universal agenda encompassing all Member States and thus a foundation for fairness where there is injustice, for inclusion in defiance of exclusion, and a commitment that global values be applied universally.

Similarly, the Secretary-General’s prevention agenda also recognizes the human rights framework as central. The Secretary-General himself has said on occasion that the best prevention tool we have is the UDHR and the treaties that derive from it, not least because almost every internal conflict in the world has human rights violations among its root causes. The UDHR continues to be as relevant today as it was in 1948 post WWII.

The UDHR is not a legally binding document, so how does it advance human rights globally?

AG: Although the UDHR is not a legally binding document, it is not merely aspirational either. It has become somewhat of a yardstick to measure Member States’ commitments to human rights, including through the various human rights mechanisms that monitor the implementation of human rights by Member States, such as the Universal Periodic Review .

Many of the rights enshrined in the UDHR have subsequently been reflected in other human rights instruments and treaties that have been ratified by Member States, so indeed, much of the UDHR is now codified into binding human rights obligations . Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition that the rights in the UDHR contain minimum standards that are applicable to all countries.

Is there a particular case study that stands out to you?

AG: This week I visited Yemen , so let me talk about that. I was shocked by what I saw. Indeed, virtually every article of the UDHR is being flagrantly and brutally disregarded. The parties to the conflict are deliberately creating massive humanitarian suffering as a tactic of war, including by restricting the delivery of emergency food and medical supplies.

There is a complete breakdown of the rule of law which has had a terrible impact on people’s rights to life, security, freedom from arbitrary arrest and torture, freedom of expression (especially of journalists), and freedom of religion (especially among the Bahai community), as well as essential social and economic rights, including to food, education and health. During my visit, I met with the mothers of detainees who recount ed tragic tales of missing husbands, sons, and brothers. I was also shocked by the wholly or partly destroyed buildings, including cultural sites.

It is hard to imagine that human rights exist in these type of situations, where virtually every human right is being violated, which make the role of the UN all the more important by reminding countries of their obligations toward their people.

What are some common misperceptions about the UDHR?

AG: Perhaps one of the most common misperceptions is that the UDHR somehow does not reflect universal standards – that it is some kind of Western document that does not take into account values of other cultures and regions. This is simply not true. First of all, many representatives of non-Western countries played a key role in the drafting of the UDHR and have ratified core human rights treaties since then.

Secondly, time and again it has been proven that human rights – be they civil and political or economic, social and cultural – are common values that are pursued by people globally. Why is the right to food for example not a “Western right” or the right not to be tortured? While some countries may prioritize one set of rights over the other, there can be no doubt that given a choice, people everywhere in the world will wish to have all their rights fulfilled.

70 years after its inception, what do you see as the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities for the UDHR?

AG: High Commissioner Bachelet has recently said that she is convinced that the human rights ideal has been one of the most constructive movement of ideas in human history – as well as one of the most successful. But today, that progress is under threat. We are experiencing unprecedented challenges when it comes to implementing some of the very same standards, that were adopted by consensus by Member States in 1948. We are seeing pushback on gender rights, including sexual and reproductive rights and also LGBTI rights, although the record there is mixed with progress in North and South America, Western Europe and a few other places, but regression in other parts of the world.

We see a cruel scapegoating of minorities: Central Americans falsely accused in the U.S. of being more likely to be criminals than regular citizens; Muslims under great pressure in Europe and the U.S., and the Rohingya being victimized to the extent of disenfranchisement, killings, mass rape, and expulsion. Syrians, Yemenis, South Sudanese, and others killed in the tens of thousands. And millions of Palestinians still under a humiliating occupation that has violated almost all their human rights for over half a century.

Perhaps what concerns me the most is the clamp down of human rights defenders. In country after country, the space is closing for civil society. We see this in harsh laws to restrict NGOs, often under the guise of counter-terrorism and in the growing number of cases of restrictions and reprisals against human rights defenders.

This 70 th anniversary of the UDHR presents an opportunity for us all to recommit to the ideals enshrined in the UDHR – to reaffirm our commitments to human rights and to stand up to those who challenge these hard-won advances that have been possible through the tireless work of activists and Member States that are willing to listen to them.

To commemorate the 70 th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, join the UN’s #StandUp4HumanRights campaign to promote and defend universal human rights.

Related Articles

About the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By Jenni Lee December 8, 2017

10 Inspiring Eleanor Roosevelt Quotes

By Madeline Branch November 6, 2015

11 Top Quotes on Human Rights

By Madeline Branch December 10, 2015

Share on Mastodon

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

This article was written by Astitva Kumar , an advocate; and has been further updated by Syed Owais Khadri . This article talks about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on December 10, 1948. Along with this, the author has also discussed global dynamics before the UDHR’s drafting, and a thorough examination of the articles enshrined in the Declaration.

This article has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

“All human rights for all’ and ‘the world is one family” are the two notions that have relied on the broadened definition of human rights, ensuring human dignity for every individual of the human race in the global village.

The question of fundamental human rights has been relevant ever since the rudimentary structure of human society came to be established. Such rights can be said to comprise the basic needs of human beings, which include the right to food, the right to breathe clean and unpolluted air, the right to shelter, the right to clothing, and the right to a decent environment, all of which are essential for human beings to live and survive, as against natural rights, which all living beings enjoy from birth and which no human agency can give or take away.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares, from the outset, that its goal is to establish worldwide human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a building block in the modern history of human rights since it draws from ancient to contemporary philosophies in response to the horrific events of World War II.

What are human rights

The term “human right” does not have a specific scientific definition. These are moral claims that are inalienable and inherent in all human beings solely because of their existence. These claims are expressed and formalised in what we now refer to as human rights, and have been translated into constitutional/legal rights established through the law-making processes of states/societies, both nationally and internationally.

Human rights are often defined as “inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is essentially entitled just by virtue of being human.” Thus, human rights are understood as universal (meaning they apply everywhere) and egalitarian (meaning they are the same for everyone). Human rights is a generic term that includes and is the traditional civil and political rights and newly developed modern economic, social and cultural rights.

The concept of human rights is also closely linked to human dignity. The World Conference on Human Rights which was held in 1993 in Vienna stated in its Declaration, “ All of the human rights are drawn from the basic concept of human dignity, worth inherited in the human being. Human rights and fundamental freedoms revolve around the human individual .”

History of human rights

The sphere of human rights has witnessed consistent and significant developments over the past century, especially after World War II, but at the same time, it is also important to note that human rights have always been a cardinal part of mankind across various cultures and human civilisations.

The earliest evidence of human rights can be traced back to the Persian Empire of Cyrus around 539 B.C. It is a recent theory that Cyrus, after the capture of Babylon, established racial equality and freed all the slaves. He declared that every human being has the right to choose a religion of their own choice. Other principles with regard to human rights were recorded on baked clay cylinders, which were commonly known as Cyrus cylinders. The most recent discussions about the Cyrus cylinder began in 1971, when the UN received a replica of the Cyrus Cylinder with an English translation of it.

Developments in England

Some of the significant developments witnessed in England with regard to human rights.  These developments include:

The Magna Carta Principles (1215)

The petition of right (1628), the english bill of rights (1689).

One of the major developments in the sphere of human rights was witnessed in England in the form of the royal charter of Magna Carta in 1215 by King John of England. Magna Carta principles are considered a cornerstone in the history of human rights as it is the first and foremost formal document on human rights. It introduced the principle of “rule of law”,  which is one of the major facets of human rights. This Charter was drafted as a peace agreement with the main objective of ending the rebellion of barons against the monarch in England. The charter was mainly focused on providing swift access to justice, protection of church rights, and protection from arbitrary arrests. The charter also laid limitations on the feudal payments to the king.

The following development with regard to human rights was the ‘ Petition of Right ’ in the year 1628, during the reign of King Charles I in England. This petition was drafted by the Parliament of England after prolonged political tensions between the Monarch and the Parliament. The petition consisted of a list of various demands, such as end to arbitrary imprisonment without trial, illegal taxation, etc. The Petition of Right is considered a significant step in the long process of transitioning England from monarchy to parliamentary democracy.

The Petition of Right in England was followed by the English Bill of Rights 1689 . The bill was converted into law with the assent of William III and Mary II, the then monarchs of England. It gave various civil and constitutional rights, including freedom of speech in the parliament, free elections, consent of the parliament for taxation policies, non interference from the government and equal and just treatment before the court of law.

Developments in the U.S.

The U.S. Bill of Rights, 1789 is another prominent document in the evolution of human rights. Drawing inspiration from the English Bill of Rights, the Congress of the United States in 1789 proposed amendments to the constitution. A total of 12 amendments were suggested, out of which 10 were ratified as Articles 3 to 12 of the Constitution by 1791. These 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively and popularly known as the U.S. Bill of Rights. These articles granted various rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, protection from cruel punishments, etc.

Developments in France

The next significant development with regard to human rights took place in France ahead of the French Revolution. France’s National Assembly adopted the “ Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen ” in 1789. This particular declaration represents one of the fundamental instruments of human liberties; it introduced one of the basic values of human civilisations, which is that all individuals are born free and everyone has equal rights. The declaration guaranteed the freedom of speech, religion, right to property, etc. The principles contained within this declaration inspired the French Revolution which is one of the most remarkable events not just in the history of France but also in world history.

Developments post 18 th century

All the rights that were slowly recognised during the long process of evolution are commonly known as first generation rights. These are the various civil and political rights such as right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to property, right to vote, just and equal treatment before the law, prevention from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, right to vote, etc.

In the late 18 th century and the early 19 th century, many wars were fought between various countries, which led to the deaths of numerous soldiers. As a concern for human rights during such wars, the first Geneva Convention came into existence in 1864, which focused on treating the wounded soldiers of war. This convention was replaced by the Geneva Convention of 1906, which was further replaced by the Geneva Convention of 1929. In addition to the three Geneva Conventions, the first multilateral treaties between various nations were commissioned in two Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 which addressed the conduct of warfare by establishing laws and customs of war. After the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 , the 1929 Geneva Convention was replaced by the Geneva Convention, 1949 , which is in force to this date.

Classification of human rights 

Civil and political rights (human rights of 1st  generation).

Civil rights or liberties are rights that protect one’s right to life and liberty. They are essential for a person to enjoy a dignified life. These rights include the right to life, liberty, the right to privacy, home, and correspondence, the right to possess property, the right to be free of torture and cruel or degrading treatment, the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and the right to move. Political rights are those that allow people to participate in the formation or administration of a government. Examples: the right to vote, the right to be elected in legitimate periodic elections, and the right to participate directly or through chosen representatives in the administration of public affairs.

Economic, social, and cultural rights (human rights of 2nd generation)

Civil and political rights are linked with western capitalist countries (eg. the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and France). On the other hand, human rights, according to socialist states, are those founded on the harmony of individual and collective interests of a socialist society. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 gave birth to economic and social rights. With the emergence of socialism in the twentieth century, these rights gained respect.

These second-generation rights are positive in the sense that they compel states to adopt proper actions to safeguard them. For example,  rights include the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and an adequate quality of life. It also includes the right to work, the right to social security, the right to good physical and mental health, and the right to education. Without these rights, human life will be jeopardised.  

These rights have been recognised in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights .

Relationship between two generations of human rights:

Even though the two sets of rights are recognized by the UN in two different Covenants, they have a strong relationship. It has been correctly recognised that both kinds of rights are equally vital and that without civil and political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights cannot be fully realised, and vice versa.

Global dynamics preceding the drafting of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Although the theological, philosophical, and political foundations of human rights intersected early on, providing a diverse variety of viewpoints crucial to the formation of civil liberty as a concept, no universal baseline for human rights was formed until the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles , signed in 1919, resulted in the formation of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation , two of the earliest international institutions dedicated to achieving peace and promoting social justice.

The League of Nations Covenant guaranteed ‘fair and humane labor conditions’, ‘just treatment’ particularly for people from historically colonial countries and members of minority groups, and ‘freedom of conscience and religion.’

Despite the efforts made to incorporate racial equality and non-discrimination articles, the concept of international protection for human rights was never fully examined or recognised by the global community.

The Institut de Droit International (Institute of International Law), a well-respected worldwide law institution, drafted and adopted the Declaration of the International Rights of Man at its meeting in New York in 1929. This agreement declared that “ every individual has equal rights to life, liberty, and property ” regardless of nationality, gender, language, or religion.

Ironically, the outbreak of World War II and its numerous losses drew greater attention to the subject of human rights. WWII killed almost 60 million people between 1939 and 1945, including allied and axis soldiers and civilians, making it the deadliest battle in human history. Sexual brutality, forced labor, mass bombings, and human experimentation were among the horrors committed during and after the Holocaust.

With the pledge ‘Never Again’, the international community pledged to strengthen international collaboration to prevent future crimes against humanity. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued one of the first major humanitarian responses to the cruel conflict. In January 1941, he proposed the Four Freedoms , which recognise the basic liberties to which all people are entitled as freedom of expression, religion, lack of want, and lack of fear, as well as the ‘supremacy of human rights everywhere.’ Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms were so influential that they were later incorporated into the preambles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other important human rights declarations.

The United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, and 22 other countries signed the Declaration of the United Nations in January 1942. Many states, including Panama, Chile, South Africa, and Mexico, proposed inserting human rights provisions in the UN Charter in April 1945, and as a result, the UN Charter talks about the  promotion of ‘respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms that is entitled to each and every individual in this world, with this it also  mandated the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights under the Economic and Social Council

About the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

As previously said the concept of inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms is not new; nonetheless, the social and political setting of the mid-twentieth century was unique and left an eternal impact on the development of human rights. At a time when society was undergoing significant changes, the concept of human rights was also compelled to shift as well. Following the end of World War II, the Holocaust inevitably shed light on human rights issues, bringing those concerns to the forefront in the postwar era.

The scars left by World War II on the human fraternity made it necessary for every nation to realise the need for an international instrument that would serve as an attempt or effort towards ensuring peace and the protection of human rights. Therefore, a declaration that was essential and that would serve as a guiding light in the direction of the protection of human rights and the establishment of peace across the globe was drafted by the Commission on Human Rights. This declaration was drafted in complement to and support of the UN Charter, which mentioned the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly , is an international declaration that establishes all human beings’ rights and freedoms. It was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France, after being drafted by a UN committee directed by Eleanor Roosevelt. The UDHR is a foundational text in the history of human and civil rights, consisting of 30 articles in it.  Although the declaration is not legally enforceable, the rights are inscribed in the constitutions and national legislation of many countries.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with its two Optional Protocols, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights along with its Optional Protocol, forms the International Bill of Human Rights.

The UDHR, as mentioned above, comprises a preamble and 30 Articles that include both civil and political, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Though there is no clear classification of articles into the two categories in The UDHR, they can be broadly classified depending upon the rights that each article guarantees. Articles 2 to 21 and Article 28 can be classified as civil and political rights, and Articles 22 to 27 can be categorised as economic, social, and cultural rights. The first article of the declaration is the conveyance of a message to every individual to uphold the spirit of brotherhood, and the last two articles of the declaration, i.e., Articles 29 and 30, are more like an obligation than a right; they impose the duty or obligation upon every individual and state to not exercise any of the rights enshrined in the Declaration in a way that would violate others’ rights and freedoms.

World Human Rights Day is observed every year on December 10th, the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Significance of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Since the Universal Declaration is not a treaty, it does not impose any legal duties on governments directly. It is, however, a statement of universal principles that all members of the international community share; it has also had a significant impact on the creation of international human rights law.

The UDHR serves as an instrument that has exceptional significance in the sphere of human rights. It is the primary proclamation that reflects the commitment of every nation towards the protection of human rights. This document has great significance mainly because of two reasons, firstly, for the fact that it is the first international instrument ever that focuses on the need for protection of human rights across the globe. Secondly, the UDHR paved the way for other various instruments on human rights that are legally binding upon the state parties. This declaration became the basis of international human rights law and laid a foundation for the evolution of human rights law not just at the international level but also at the domestic level. It inspired nations across the world to give significance to human rights and to respect each and every individual.

As an impact of UDHR, every nation today, regardless of whether it is a democratic country or not, has provided its citizens with at least the basics of human rights. The UDHR supported by various other international instruments on human rights, has been successful in reducing numerous practices such as racial discrimination, torture, slavery, etc., to a great extent, which were very prevalent during the 19 th century. Recognition of women’s rights is another achievement of the UDHR.

Though it is said that the Universal Declaration is not legally binding upon the state parties directly, it is nevertheless important to understand that the mechanism under international human rights law makes the UDHR indirectly binding upon the state parties through the medium of forthcoming instruments on the subject of human rights. The various instruments that have come into existence at the international level are ultimately based upon the principles and rights laid down by the UDHR. Therefore, any nation that is a party to any of the instruments on human rights has an indirect legal obligation to comply with the provisions of the UDHR. 

In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has given rise to several international treaties that are binding on the countries that ratify them. These include:

•   The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Other legally binding agreements that expand on the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include:

• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965
• 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
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006

A summary of the articles

The basic structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was influenced by the Code Napoléon, a series of regulations written centuries ago by Napoléon Bonaparte.

Though its final shape took form in the second draft prepared by French jurist René Cassin , who also contributed to the first draft prepared by Canadian legal expert John Peters Humphrey.

The Declaration consists of the following:

The preamble of the Declaration outlines the social and historical factors that led to the formation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 : Free and equal

All humans are born free and equal, and they should all be treated equally.

Article 2: Freedom from discrimination

Everyone is entitled to claim their rights, regardless of their sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, ethnicity, or language.

• Civil and Political Rights: Articles 3 to 21

Article 3: Right to life

Everyone has the right to life, as well as the right to live in a free and secure environment.

Article 4 : Freedom from slavery

No one has the right to treat anyone as a slave, and you have no right to enslave anyone.

Article 5: Freedom from torture

No one human being has the right to subject any human being to torture.

Article 6: Right to recognition before the law

Each and every individual should be legally protected by law.  

Article 7: Right to equality before the law

The law is the same for everyone and it should be applied in the same way to everyone without any discrimination. 

Article 8: Access to justice

When the rights of individuals are violated, they have every right to seek legal aid.

Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary detention

No individual has the authority to arbitrarily arrest or detain any individual, or deport them from their nation.

Article 10: Right to a fair trial

Trials should be open to the public and conducted fairly by an impartial and independent tribunal.

Article 11: Presumption of innocence

Until an individual is to be proven guilty in a court of law, they are presumed innocent, and hence they have the right to a defence.

Article 12: Right to privacy

Each and every human being has the right to be protected if someone attempts to damage their reputation, access their house without permission, or interfere with their correspondence.

Article 13: Freedom of movement

Everyone has the right to leave or relocate inside their own country and to return

Article 14: Right to asylum

Everyone has the right to seek refuge in another country if you are being persecuted in your homeland.

Article 15: Right to nationality

Each and every human being has the right to be a citizen of a country and to have its nationality.

Article 16: Right to marriage and to found a family

Men and women have the right to marry (only when they attain their legal age to marry) without any regard to race, country, or religion. The government and the legal system of that country should safeguard families.

Article 17: Right to own property

All human beings have the legal right to own property. No one has the authority to unlawfully take them from any individual.

Article 18: Freedom of religion or belief

Everyone has the freedom to freely express, change, and practise their religion alone or with others.

Article 19: Freedom of Expression

Everyone has the right to think and freely express ideas or whatever they decide.

Article 20: Freedom of assembly

Every individual has the right to hold peaceful meetings and to participate in them.

Article 21: Right to take part in public affairs

Everyone has the right to participate in the political activities of their country and has equal access to public service.

•   Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Articles 22 to 27

Article 22: Right to social security

Every individual should be able to develop freely and take advantage of all the benefits that their country has to offer.

Article 23: Right to work

Everyone has the right to work in just and fair conditions, with the freedom to select their work and pay that allows them to sustain themselves and their families. For equal work, everyone should be paid equally.

Article 24: Right to leisure and rest

Workdays should not be excessively long, and everyone has the right to rest and take paid leave regularly.

Article 25: Right to an adequate standard of living

Everyone has the right to have everything you require so that you and your family do not go hungry, are not homeless, and do not fall ill.

Article 26: Right to education

Regardless of race, religion, or place of origin, every human being has the right to attend school, continue their studies as far as they choose, and learn.

Article 27: Right to take part in the cultural, artistic, and scientific life

Each and every individual has the right to share the cultural, artistic, and scientific benefits of your community.

Article 28: Right to a free and fair world

To ensure that our rights are protected, there must be a court that can protect them.

Article 29: Duty to your community

We humans have responsibilities to the community that allows us to completely develop our personality. Human rights should be protected by law. It should enable everyone to appreciate and be respected by others.

Article 30: Rights are inalienable

No one, neither institution nor individual, should act in any way to undermine the rights guaranteed by the UDHR.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Human Rights in India

India, as a democratic and welfare nation, has always given utmost importance to human rights and has always been committed to the protection of human rights, which is also reflected in the Indian Constitution. 

The UDHR had a great influence on the Indian Constitution since the drafting of the document was completed a year later to the adoption of the international instrument. India, being a signatory to the proclamation, ensured that the principles enshrined in the UDHR are also reflected in the Constitution of India. The words “Secular, Justice, Equality” in the preamble, the very beginning text of the Constitution, reflect the spirit of India as a nation to promote and protect human rights. The simple terms in the preamble are supported by Part III and Part IV of the Constitution, which discuss the fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy.

Comparison of the Indian Constitution and the UDHR

The below table shows the comparison between rights provided in the Indian Constitution and the UDHR. 

Case laws 

The Supreme Court of India has been playing a significant role in the evolution of domestic jurisprudence with regard to the sphere of human rights. Though the Constitution lists down specific rights under Part III, the Supreme Court through wide interpretation of the provisions under Part III, has always engaged in making the fundamental rights inclusive. The Supreme Court, through its decisions, has added various rights, such as the right to education and the right to privacy, within the meaning of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as implied fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India has also recognised and invoked the UDHR in various cases. Some of the cases where the Supreme Court of India has discussed the UDHR are briefly discussed below.

His holiness Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973)

Brief facts:.

• In the present case , the petitioner was the chief of a religious institution (Mutt) in the state of Kerala. The Mutt’s land was acquired by the state under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. The petitioner challenged this Act in the Supreme Court, contending that the Legislation is violative of Article 26 which provides for freedom to manage religious institutions.
• The Parliament in the meanwhile passed 24th , 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts, which added the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts, 1969 and 1971 to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and also curtailed the right to property as a fundamental right.
• The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of these acts and the power of parliament to amend fundamental rights.
• Whether or not the parliament can amend the fundamental rights.
• Whether or not the impugned Constitutional Amendment Acts are valid.

Though the present case is a landmark one that dealt with various issues, the relevant portion of the judgement with regard to human rights is the issue of the power of parliament to amend fundamental rights. The Court in this case held that the parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, but the amendment should not be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution which includes the fundamental features of the constitution such as equality, justice, or any of the principles mentioned in the preamble of the constitution. The basic structure also includes Part III of the Constitution which includes the fundamental rights. The Court also held that though the UDHR is not legally binding, the way the fundamental rights are drafted by the constituent assembly shows how India understood the nature of human rights. The Court further held that the declaration describes some rights as inalienable.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

• The president of India declared a national emergency through a presidential order under Article 352 of the Constitution citing threat to security of India due to internal disturbances.
• The presidential order led to the suspension of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Simultaneously, the court proceedings with regard to the application of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution were also subject to suspension.
• The declaration of emergency was followed by arbitrary detention of various politicians and others.
• As a result of the presidential order, the lower courts suspended the proceedings dealing with the application of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. But the decision of a few courts was not in favour of the government, and the government appealed such decisions before the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the fundamental rights can be suspended during an emergency.

Hon’ble Justice Khanna, the dissenting judge in this case , while interpreting the presidential order under Article 359(1) , held that the interpretation of the presidential order, since it affects the fundamental rights or human rights, should be in conformity with the international customary law. Justice Khanna stressed upon Article 8 and 9 of the UDHR which provide for the enforcement of fundamental rights and protection from arbitrary detention. He observed that the Court should interpret the presidential order under Article 359(1) in a manner which would bring it conflict with Article 8 and 9 of the UDHR. He therefore held that the presidential order should not be construed to permit arbitrary detention or suspension of any remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1991)

• In the present case , the appellant, along with two other accused, was charged with offences under Section 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and concealing the dead body of the victim.
• The Sessions Court convicted all three accused for the alleged crime and sentenced them to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 and a rigorous imprisonment of 2 years for offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 
• The High Court, on appeal, acquitted accused 2 and 3 for offence under Section 302 and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused.
• Therefore, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court, while acquitting the appellant, held that the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that there was fabrication of evidence by the investigating officer. The Court also held that the investigating officer also violated the fundamental right to personal liberty of the accused by framing them for offences punishable with capital punishment. The Court further observed that, though investigating heinous crimes is a difficult task since such crimes are committed with great secrecy, it is necessary to consider the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also invoked the right to defend guaranteed under Article 10 of the universal declaration and held that assigning an experienced defence counsel to the accused is an important aspect of a fair trial and the inbuilt right to life and liberty as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. 

Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors. (2000)

• In the present case , a few railway employees committed rape of a woman, who was a Bangladeshi national, at the ‘Rail Yatri Niwas’, Howrah railway station. 
• Mrs. Chandrima Das, an advocate, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Calcutta High Court claiming compensation for the victim. The High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the victim, which was to be paid by the railway board since the offence was committed by the railway employees on the station premises.
• The railway board filed an appeal before the Supreme Court contending that it would not be liable to pay the compensation since the victim was a foreigner and not an Indian national. The board also contended that the offence was an individual act of persons, and hence it would not be liable to pay compensation for the acts of concerned individuals. The board had further contended that compensation could not be awarded since the petitioner was not the victim herself.

Whether the railway board is liable to pay the compensation.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held the railway board and the central government vicariously liable. The Court, while upholding the compensation awarded to the victim, discussed the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are in consonance with the rights set out in the UDHR. Therefore the meaning of the term ‘life’ under Article 3 of the Constitution has to have the same meaning under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the meaning of the term life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be narrowed down. Though the fundamental rights are available to the citizens of the nation, a few of them are available to any person, be it a citizen or a foreigner.

Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013)

• In the present case , a person named Sunil Kumar filed an RTI application seeking information about some members of a co-operative society.
• The Kerala State government issued a circular stating that all the co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 fall within the definition of ‘Public Authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as a result of it being obligatory to provide the information sought by any citizen under the RTI Act.
• The co-operative society filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the circular. The Court upheld the circular.
• After a series of appeals that involved overturning and upholding decision of the Kerala High Court, the present appeal is filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Whether the Co-operative societies fall within the definition of ‘Public Authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Court in this case answered the issue negatively, holding that the co-operative societies do not fall under the definition of public authority. The Court held that the furnishing personal information of an individual that has no public interest would be a violation of the individual’s right to privacy, which has been recognised as a basic human right under Article 12 of the UDHR and also as an implied right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court in this case also observed that the right to information is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, though it is not explicitly mentioned. It further noted that Article 19 of the universal declaration also recognises right to information as a fundamental human right. 

K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017)

• The government launched AADHAR, which was made mandatory for availing certain schemes.
• An individual was required to provide biometric data while signing up for AADHAR.
• The petitioner, who is Retd. Justice, challenged the Aadhar scheme before the Supreme Court, contending that it violates the right to privacy of an individual .

Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right and a constitutionally protected value.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the right to privacy is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the right to privacy is recognised as an international human right by Article 12 of the UDHR to which India is also a signatory. The Court therefore observed that recognition of privacy as a fundamental constitutional value is part of India’s commitment to global human rights, as Article 51 of the Constitution requires the state to respect international law and treaty obligations. The Court further held that the importance of the right to privacy cannot be diluted.

In a world where human rights enforcement is still a challenge in both developed and developing countries, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as a lighthouse for the international community on the standards that should be set for the protection and promotion of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights marked the beginning of a new era of hope for respect for all people’s inherent equality and dignity. It paved the way for the drafting of international human rights treaties and the formation of several human rights organisations. It gave greater legitimacy to the subject of human rights around the world, putting it firmly on the agendas of both national governments and the international community. 

Despite these great achievements, the last seventy-three years have also shown that, in the absence of political will and resources, complete respect for human rights remains a pledge on paper. Even in recent scenarios, the fight against crime and terrorism has also put a strain on fundamental rights. 

So governments today must show the same degree of vision, courage, and commitment that led the United Nations to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seventy-three years ago.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the name of the united nations first human rights declaration.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Where was the UDHR signed?

It was adopted at the Palais de Chaillo t, in Paris, France.

What is the total number of articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The Declaration enshrines 30 Articles.

What is the significance of the UDHR today?

One of the most important documents in international human rights legislation is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It serves as the foundation for many other human rights documents, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Documents like these allow governments, advocates, and attorneys to promote human rights everywhere and take action when they are infringed.

When is Human Rights Day observed?

10 December each year.

• https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Human%20rights%20are%20rights%20inherent,and%20education%2C%20and%20many%20more .
• https://www.amnesty.org.uk/universal-declaration-human-rights-UDHR
• https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/universal-declaration-human-rights/
• https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/en/pdf/un.universal.declaration.of.human.rights.1948.portrait.letter.pdf
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25478812
• https://www.britannica.com/summary/human-rights
• https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/  
• https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp  
• https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights  
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Constitution of India, 1950.
• www.scconline.com  

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

A.d.m. jabalpur vs. shivkant shukla (1976), i.r. coelho vs. state of tamil nadu (2007), aruna ramchandra shanbaug vs. union of india & others (2011), leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to Become an Insolvency Professional: Enter the Glamorous World of Corporate Restructuring, Management and Deal-Making

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): 30 Articles - 30 Documents: Exhibit for the 75th Anniversary

Introduction, articles 1-5, articles 6-11, articles 12-21, articles 22-27, articles 28-29, drafting history research guide.

About the Exhibit

On 10 December 2023, we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) .

This milestone document set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Its 30 articles underpin international human rights law and provide a common global standard for human rights at the country and regional level.

The UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library presents a selection of 30 key documents related to the 30 articles that constitute the Declaration.

The Declaration is the most translated document in the world, available in more than 500 languages . Adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) on 10 December 1948, it is still just as relevant in our world today.

For more information about the UDHR, explore our Research Guides on its Drafting History  and on UN Human Rights Documentation .

Information about the Human Rights 75 campaign cis available on the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights .   

Media Credits:

• UN Photo Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• Front Line Defenders

Other Credits:

• Human Rights Here and Now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World (2016)

Equality, Non-Discrimination, Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of Person

Article 1 - Right to Equality

Article 2 - Freedom from Discrimination

• More information

Article 3 - Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security

Article 4 - Freedom from Slavery

Article 5 - Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment

• A/RES/57/199
• A/RES/70/175

Equal Protection of the Law, Effective and Fair Judicial Process

Article 6 - Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law

Article 7 - Right to Equality before the Law

• A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1

Article 8 - Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal

Article 9 - Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile

Article 10 - Right to a Fair Public Hearing

Article 11 - Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty

• A/RES/45/166

Civil and Political Rights

Article 12 - Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence

Article 13 - Right to Free Movement in and out of a Country

Article 14 - Right to Asylum in other Countries Free of Persecution

• E/RES/248 (IX) B

Article 15 - Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It

Article 16 - Right to Marriage and Family

• A/HRC/RES/24/23

Article 17 - Right to Own Property

Article 18 - Freedom of Belief and Religion

Article 19 - Freedom of Opinion and Information

• A/RES/1386 (XIV)

Article 20 - Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association

• A/HRC/20/27

Article 21 - Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

Article 22 - Right to Social Security

Article 23 - Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions

Article 24 - Right to Rest and Leisure

Article 25 - Right to Adequate Living Standards

• A/HRC/25/53

Article 26 - Right to Education

Article 27 - Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community

• A/HRC/20/26

International Order, Limitation, Derogation, and Destruction of Rights

Article 28 - Right to a Social Order

• A/HRC/26/28

Article 29 - Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development

• E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19

• Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (A/RES/53/144, 1998) The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as it is more commonly known, was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly after almost 20 years of contentious negotiations. It acknowledges the vital role that human rights defenders play in achieving the full and effective enjoyment of human rights by all and in advancing the realization of fundamental freedoms everywhere. It also places an obligation on States to protect human rights defenders from threats, attacks, and reprisals by both government authorities and non-state actors, and to create an enabling environment by passing laws that implement the provisions of the Declaration. A commentary issued in 2011 confirms that the Declaration is firmly rooted in international human rights law. It presents numerous examples of activities of human rights defenders and the many forms of reprisals they face, including journalists investigating government corruption, activists advocating for the rights of LGBTI persons, trade unionists striking for decent working conditions, or indigenous communities resisting business activities that threaten their land and resources. Since 2000, a Special Rapporteur has been monitoring the situation of human rights defenders. A key role of the Special Rapporteur is to advocate for human rights defenders at risk by sending urgent appeals and letters of allegations to States. In a recent report (A/HRC/34/52) the Special Rapporteur recognized human rights defenders as the “heroes of our time”.
• A/HRC/34/52

Human Rights Defenders

Photos in collage courtesy of Front Line Defenders .

• Last Updated: Sep 24, 2024 12:53 PM
• URL: https://research.un.org/en/udhr75

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Human rights at your fingertips

Human Rights at Your Finger Tips

• Back to Contents
• 2 Chart of Australian Treaty Ratifications as of May 2012
• 3 Chart of related rights and articles in human rights instruments
• 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• 5 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• 6 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• 7 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• 8 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
• 9 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• 10 Convention on the Rights of the Child
• 11 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• 12 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• 13 Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles)
• 14 Useful resources

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 December 1948.

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,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

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,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

1. 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, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Review the declaration on the UN website.

Further reading

• What is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?
• Explore an Introduction to Human Rights
• Find out about how the Australian Human Rights Commission was established
• Review the latest speeches from Australian Human Rights Commissioners
• Understand the Commission's proposals for an Australian Huma Rights Act

A network dedicated to building a culture of human rights

Lesson Plans – Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A re Human Rights Universal? Source: HRE USA Using hypothetical examples, students will discuss the concept of universal human rights and their personal thoughts and opinions on the issues. Students will be asked to read or listen to various news articles about the topics, conduct their own research, and prepare notes for a discussion. The purpose is to use current and personal examples in order to engage students in the discussion of human rights.

Grade Level : high school Subject Area : social studies

“Close to Home” – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Source: UN Visitor’s Center Teaching Guide and Resources for two lessons: Understanding the UDHR introduces the UDHR engages students with specific rights; Everyday Human Rights relates rights to daily life.

Grade Level : K-4; 5-8 Subject Area: social studies

Competing Visions of Human Rights: Questions for U.S. Policy Source: The Choices Program, Brown University] A challenging seven-lesson curriculum that addresses human rights concepts, practice, and controveries.

Grade Level : high school Subject Area: social studies, history, civics

Educating for Human Dignity: Learning about Rights and Responsibilities Author: Betty Reardon,  Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press It is the first resource offering both guidance and support materials for human rights education programs from kindergarten through high school. It opens possibilities for an holistic approach to human rights education that directly confronts the values issues raised by human rights problems in a context of global interrelationships. Designed for both teachers and teacher educators. Grade Level:  Adults, educators, teacher educators

Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Source: National Park Service Focuses on Eleanor Roosevelt’s role. Compares the UDHR with Magna Carta and the US Bill of Rights. Grade Level:  high school Subject Area:  social studies, history

Going Global – Investigating Global Issues of Interest and Importance Source: HRE USA In this independent research project, students focus on areas of interest to them based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then study a location that is a hotbed of violations of their chosen human right. The long-term study culminates with a structured presentation of their topic with the intent to raise awareness of Human Rights issues and the intent of proposing a potential solution utilizing specific problem-solving steps. Grade Level: middle school Subject Area: social studies

Human Rights Source: Anti-defamation League Introduces the UDHR and relates rights to students’ communities and experiences

Grade Level:  high school Subject Area:  social studies, civics

Human Rights Here and Now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Publisher: Amnesty International, University of Minnesota Human Rights Center, The Stanley Foundation, 1998 Full curriculum that provides an introduction to the UDHR and human rights and human rights education, lesson plans, activities for taking action, and a human rights glossary. Grade Level: middle – high school

Human Rights, Responsibilities, and You Publisher: The Advocates for Human Rights Three lessons that introduce human rights and personal responsibility for their realization in everyday life. Grade Level:  middle school Subject Area:  social studies

I Have a Right to … Source: BBC World Service A collection of case studies that illustrate specific human rights with contemporary examples. Grade Level:  high school Subject Area:  social studies, current events, geography

Introduction to Human Rights Lesson Plan Source: PBS NewsHour Classroom, AFT An introduction to human rights with video. Grade Level:  middle school-high school Subject Area:  social studies, civics

Teaching Human Rights Author: David Shiman Publisher: Center for Teaching International Relations, 1993 The UDHR provides a useful framework for organizing this collection of curriculum activities on human rights. Can serve either as the core on human rights or a resource from which teachers can draw specific activities to integrate into existing curricula. Price : About $30 Grade Level : middle – high school Subject Area : social studies, government

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Source:  Facing History and Ourselves Reading and discussion on the history and significance of the UDHR. Grade Level : middle – high school Subject Area : history, social studies, government

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Lesson Plan Source: Academy 4 Social Change Covers the meaning of rights, the UDHR and its contemporary relevance. Grade Level : middle – high school Subject Area : history, social studies, government

The UDHR & Contemporary Issues Source: HRE USA This lesson asks students to correlate the UDHR to current newspaper articles which illustrate the portrayal of human rights in one of four situations (rights achieved, rights denied, rights violated, rights in conflict). Students will explain that situation, the correlation to the UDHR, and then write a reflection on the role of the UDHR in potentially resolving the situation. Grade Level : high school Subject Area : social studies

Using Inquiry-Based Research to Highlight Contemporary Human Rights Challenges Source: HRE USA Students will be introduced to the concept of Human Rights and tasked with finding how they are still applicable to our world today. This series of lessons will begin with a general introduction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this, students will design their own questions about what human rights abuses may still be occurring today. The lesson will culminate in students creating an infographic, which will then be shared with the class. Grade Level : high school Subject Area : social studies

The World as It Could Be Publisher: The World as It Could Be Full curriculum that uses the creative arts to deepen learning about the UDHR and provide opportunities for the youth to, in turn, teach their peers and adults about the importance of manifesting the words of the UDHR.  Lesson plans are designed to encourage a progression of learning that starts with objective knowledge, moves to personal connection to both human rights concepts and issues, and then engagement to play a role in advancing UDHR principles. Grade Level: middle – high school Subject Area: social studies, language arts, drama, music

A World at Peace Source: PBS In this lesson students to brainstorm the basic rights of people everywhere, explore in basic terms the UDHR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and then use international photography galleries as part of a multimedia creative writing assignment imagining a world at peace. Grade Level: elementary school Subject Area: social studies

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Welcome to the United Nations

Africa’s freedom struggles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Get monthly e-newsletter.

Sovereign African countries barely existed when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, three years after the end of World War II.

It was the first time an internationally agreed-upon document unequivocally stated that all human beings are free and equal, irrespective of color, creed or religion.

But then, most of Africa was still under colonial rule. Only four African countries—Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa—were UN members, and three of them signed the declaration. South Africa did not sign, because of the declaration’s potential to disrupt its practice of racial discrimination and segregation, also known as apartheid, which lasted from 1948 until 1994.

Years later, the declaration would help transform African territories into independent states and inspire the continent’s own African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted on 21 October 1986, a document created to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms. On 10 December 2018, the world marked the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On 6 March 1957, barely a decade after the adoption of the declaration, Ghana’s then–prime minister, Kwame Nkrumah, told a huge celebratory crowd at the Old Polo Grounds in the capital, Accra: “At long last, the battle has ended! And thus, Ghana, your beloved country, is free, forever!”

Ghana, a former British colony, had just gained independence.

In his speech Mr. Nkrumah aptly invoked the principles of equality, freedom and justice for all—the same principles that the declaration enshrines.

Before the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, then Republic of the Congo) became independent in 1960, Patrice Émery Lumumba, a historical figure in the continent-wide independence movement, emphasized that self-determination in Africa was a basic human right, underscoring the relevance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the fight for independence.

“Let [the West] today give proof of the principle of equality and friendship between races that its sons have always taught us as we sat at our desks in school, a principle written in capital letters in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Mr. Lumumba said in 1959 at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, a renowned center of intellectual ferment in colonial Africa.

“Africans must be just as free as other citizens of the human family to enjoy the fundamental liberties set forth in this declaration and the rights proclaimed in the United Nations Charter,” he added.

Paradoxically, in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ most enthusiastic supporters, including Belgium, France, Great Britain, Portugal and Spain, still possessed colonies in Africa in which most natives were subjects rather than citizens.

Freedom and Justice

The declaration’s proclamation of universal equality, freedom and justice strengthened the momentum toward self-determination in Africa and helped usher in an era of sovereign countries. It would also inspire several liberation movements, including those that fought against apartheid in South Africa.

The right to asylum, to freedom from torture, to free speech and to education are some of the 30 rights and freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also addresses civil and political rights, including the right to life, liberty and privacy, in addition to economic, social and cultural rights.

It sets the basic standards of individual rights and over the years has inspired several human rights legislations across the world, including the Freedom Charter in South Africa.

Unsurprisingly, anti-apartheid activists worldwide would draw on the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their fight. In 1955 then-president of the African National Congress, Chief Albert Luthuli, said, “People from all walks of life [must meet] as equals, irrespective of race, color and creed, to formulate a Freedom Charter for all people in the country.”

The Nobel Foundation awarded Mr. Luthuli the Peace Prize in 1960 and described him as “the leader of ten million black Africans in their nonviolent campaign for civil rights in South Africa.”

Africa’s Charter

Although African leaders framed their quest for national independence as demands for justice, equality and dignity for all, the first two decades postindependence (the 1960s and 1970s) were marked by human rights violations.

Authoritarian and single-party regimes, including military administrations, had replaced elected ones across the continent.

Kéba Mbaye, an architect of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, described the situation at the time: “African governments appear clearly to have sacrificed rights and freedoms for the sake of development and political stability.”

Dictators such as Uganda’s Idi Amin (1971–1979), Equatorial Guinea’s Macías Nguema (1968–1979) and Central African Republic’s Jean-Bedel Bokassa (1966–1979) were accused of egregious human rights violations.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was intended to promote human rights from an African perspective, including by emphasizing collective political rights and the right to national self-determination.

“The Committee that drafted the African Charter was guided by the principle that it should reflect the African conception of human rights [and] should take as a pattern the African philosophy of law and meet the needs of Africa,” Amnesty International observed at the time.

The charter clearly acknowledges the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its preamble and explicitly recognises civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Strong and alive

Over the years, the principles of freedom, equality and justice embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights continue to fuel citizens’ demands for democracy and for accountability from authoritarian and single-party regimes.

“The Universal Declaration is strong and alive,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet remarked in New York last September, adding that the declaration “has empowered millions to march, to come together and to build progress.” Women and men are now inspired “to demand an end to discrimination, tyranny and exploitation,” Ms. Bachelet declared.

In African countries such as Cameroon, the DRC, Gabon, the Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal, Tanzania and Togo, it is not uncommon to see citizens taking over the streets to demand equality, fairness, justice and dignity.

In the last two decades, citizens have pressured many African countries, including Nigeria, the Gambia, Liberia and Zimbabwe, to move from authoritarian regimes to democracies, opening up political space.

Most of these countries now regularly hold democratic elections, although questions are raised whether some of these elections are free and fair. Also, in many countries, vibrant civil societies are advocating for transparent and accountable governments, accentuating progress in the entrenchment of freedom of speech and association.

“We still have a long way to go,” Ms. Bachelet noted. “But in the past 70 years, humanity has moved a thousand steps forward.”

From colonies to independent states to more open and pluralistic societies, Africa is certainly making progress.   

Also in this issue

Towards a safe and orderly migration

Africa Dialogue Series launched

Ending violence against women and girls in the Sahel: crucial for sustainable development

Plaudits for the man who mends women

Risky journey to Europe

A life on the move

Confronting the challenges of migration in West and Central Africa

African migrants keen to retain their cultural values abroad

Migration can be a catalyst for economic growth

Uganda stands out in refugees hospitality

2019: Year of return for African Diaspora

Egypt ‘Ify’ Ufele

A double challenge for the disabled

Nigeria needs free, fair and credible elections

Crisis worsens in Cameroon

After making peace, Ethiopia and Eritrea now focus on development

Fighting ‘hidden hunger’ with fortified foods

Global warming: severe consequences for Africa

Blue economy can be a lifeline for Africa

Kofi Annan: tribute to a rare gentleman

Book review: living together, living apart social cohesion in a future south africa, un appointments.

2024 SDG Report highlights stalled progress and growing inequities as 2030 deadline approaches

New 10-Year Plan offers lifeline to small islands developing states

Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Customary International Law? Evidence from an Empirical Study of US Case Law

29 Pages Posted: 28 Jan 2020

Rossana Deplano

University of Leicester

Date Written: October 18, 2019

Paper presented at the 2019 Stanford International Junior Faculty Forum. This paper contributes to the conceptualization of the customary status of the UDHR by focusing on the use US federal courts have made of it (1949-2018). It provides one of the possible angles of inquiry, but it does not claim completeness. In performing an empirical study, it aims at supplementing, rather than replacing, legal theory on this issue.

Keywords: Customary International Law, UDHR, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, opinio juris

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Rossana Deplano (Contact Author)

University of leicester ( email ).

University Road Leicester LE1 7RH, LE1 7RH United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, public international law: human rights ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Public International Law: Sources eJournal

Human rights & the global economy ejournal, cultural anthropology: history, theory, methods & applications ejournal, legal anthropology: law in global context ejournal.

Subscribe to this journal for more curated articles on this topic

International Institutions: Transnational Networks eJournal

Human rights ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic