essay on human rights are universal

Are Human Rights Universal?

The issue of human rights is highly contested in international political theory and the way it is interpreted depends on both how any particular theorist understands moral obligation and international law distinctively and how the two concepts relate to each other in international relations. Questioning whether human rights are universal is a philosophical debate that depends on fundamental interpretations of what is right and, indeed, to what extent existing rights are accepted and enjoyed by all. The debate becomes even more complex, however, when examining the variant translations of values that emerge from these philosophies into practical politics. Within a world system comprised of diverse and often conflicting cultures and political viewpoints, attempting to universalise human rights into the international system is problematic and can appear contradictory. Although advances have been made in the move to codify human rights requirements at an international level, the subject remains imprecise with regards to both national obligation and the relationship between a respect for sovereignty and the justification of intervention on moral grounds.

In order to declare human rights universal in a practical sense, proof must be given not only towards their availability, but also towards their accessibility. This distinction has important implications within international relations, as it defines whether violations are an issue to be discussed within the international realm or one that must remain predominantly in the national domain. Using the atrocities of human rights violations within Latin America in the 20 th Century as a point of analysis, this essay will assess the extent to which human rights are indeed universal within an international system that attempts to balance moral obligation with a respect for diversity and national sovereignty.

Within political theory, there are a number of viewpoints that claim the universal nature of human rights. Inherent to this strain of theory is the conviction that there are certain rights that ‘one has simply because one is a human being’ (Donnelly, 2002, p.12), stressing the similarities that humans share as members of a global community. Cosmopolitanism is just one theory within a wider school of thought that emphasises the need for an equality of ‘legal rights and duties’ between the ‘fellow citizens of a universal republic’ (Pogge, 1992, p. 49). At an international level, the way cosmopolitanism defines the universal nature of rights translates as a responsibility on behalf of the international community to ensure that human rights are upheld globally. With close links to deontology, in reference to ‘the nature of human duty or obligation’ (Shapcott, 2008, p. 194), the theory clearly advocates a moral duty in interstate relations. This argument has strong implications, suggesting that theoretically, if a government within a sovereign state were to ignore the universal human rights of their citizens, it would be morally legitimate for the international community to use necessary force to ensure that they are universally upheld.

An example of the adoption of such ideas can be seen by the defining arrest of Pinochet in 1998 ‘on an international warrant and extradition request from Spain’ (Langer, 2011, p. 4). A further example was seen in 2007 when Fujimori was extradited from Chile in order to face trial in Peru. While the ability to arrest under universal jurisdiction is not mentioned explicitly in a codified form, various states have taken the initiative in interpreting such statutes ‘to authorize and even require that the municipal courts assert universal jurisdiction’ (Langer, 2011, p. 4), pushing the decision making process into the global arena. This direct translation from theory to practise demonstrates an important means of ensuring the universal nature of human rights and, indeed, represents the possibility of successfully widening the accessibility of human rights.

There are numerous theories however, that counteract cosmopolitanism by debating about the extent to which human rights can be universalised. These views develop from a contrasting conceptualisation of rights, contending that people do not inherit rights purely because they are human. Rather, they acquire them as members of a specific community. One of the most influential branches of this line of political thought is communitarianism. This theory highlights the ‘fundamental differences among groups in their moral norms and values and accompanying world views’ (Nickel, 1987, p. 69). The need for moral relativism in the face of these cultural differences means that it is impossible to create a definitive list of rights that are relevant and applicable to all. This can be seen as a moral theory in itself, as the dangers of universalising morality override any honourable intentions that, at a global level, are ‘incompatible with a commitment to human rights’ (Nickel, 1987, p. 69).

Within Latin America, for example, it is difficult to understate the extent of cultural divergence between indigenous communities and more urbanised decedents of European colonial powers. If differing cultural factors determine the relative definitions of human rights, then foreign powers would be unable to extend their own definition of these rights on others, since doing so would be ethnocentric in nature. Perhaps, liberal states must accept that they ‘have no cosmopolitan duties to globalise their own conception of distributive justice’ (Shapcott, 2008, p. 200) and that, in their very nature, rights are culturally dependent and far from universal.

Communitarianism is interesting in the way that it not only suggests that states do not have a responsibility to ensure the human rights of citizens who are part of other sovereign nations, but also in how it argues it is morally wrong to do so. Since ‘the best ethics is one which preserves diversity over homogeneity’ (Shapcott, 2008, p. 200), states must avoid the cultural imperialism of enforcing westernised definitions of human rights on nations in which these morals could hold little relevance. This implies that it is the responsibility of nation states, rather than the global community, to ensure that the culturally relevant rights of individual nations are upheld, for ensuring diversity internationally.

Nevertheless, this notion has dangerous implications regarding the reaction to human rights violations, as it assumes no convergence of rights at a global level. Furthermore, it ‘denies the possibility of transcultural moral criticism’ (Nickel, 1987, p. 71), assuming that all human rights violations are a result of cultural differences. An example of this could be the existence of competing ‘mutually exclusive categories’ (Cardenas, 2011, p. 53) within society, which could create a hierarchical social system that inherently limits cohesion. Comparable situations have been seen under the Chilean dictatorship with the persecution of political dissidents; in Argentina against left wing supporters of Perón; in the violence towards indigenous Peruvians; and in the dominance of the Maya in the victims of the Guatemalan conflict. This theory would suggest that, in such cases, human rights abuses were a result of internal clashes that arose from culturally specific situations that cannot be dealt with by a generalised approach. Considering that each violation occurs within different internal contests, the theory suggests that states must accept that human rights are culturally dependent and, therefore, not universal in any applicable sense.

The ambiguity of Human Rights declarations allows for an interpretation at a national level that, to some extent, avoids the criticisms of universal human rights as an over-generalising concept limiting independent solutions to independent violations. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, states the right to ‘life, liberty and security of person’ (1948). The absence of clear definitions of the terms used within statutory agreements leaves a degree of ambiguity that has to be translated and interpreted on a case by case basis, theoretically allowing cultural divergence to have effects on the implementation of varying rights in practise, yet still attempting to ensure a minimal basis for human rights universally. However, this ability to interpret and define rights is an issue that, in fact, limits their universal nature, as it liberates states from frameworks that were designed to ensure all people enjoyed access to agreed rights. The ability to interpret violations as they occur ultimately gives the international community the power to choose the limitations of involvement and, accordingly, if and when they are able to intervene in the affairs of other nations. By doing this, international law essentially permits the use of human rights as a justification to transcend national borders. However, without the obligation to deal with such violations, states will inevitably follow incentives that lie outside the realm of human rights prevention.

Following a realist interpretation of state motivation, nations will only intervene when they can see a means of explicit gain, and they will consequently interpret international declarations in a way that justifies such intervention. As Neumayer suggests, historically, the most developed of militarily powers ‘are rarely consistent in their application of human rights standards to their foreign policy, and they are rarely willing to grant human rights questions priority’ (2005, p. 926). This prioritisation is best illustrated by Cold War motives in the twentieth century. Whilst in Guatemala, ‘human rights pressures led the Carter administration to impose conditions on U.S. aid’ (Jonas, 1996, p. 148), their fear of Allende’s ability to mobilise the Chilean proletariat led to the financial support of ‘opponents of the government to sustain the organized resistance to Allende’ (Goldberg, 1975, p. 110). In the Chilean case, economic and ideological motivations were enough to motivate an effect on U.S. foreign policy, whilst the agreeable economic aims of the military dictatorship (1973-1990) appeared to justify ignoring extensive human rights violations during the period. Until there is a stated obligation within the international community to intervene in the case of rights violation, states will intervene only when doing so does not contradict their own initiatives. They will, therefore, often ignore violations in cases where their own interests are already satisfied. This issue hugely limits the extent to which human rights can be considered truly universal in practise.

The lack of state obligation to intervene in other states regarding human rights violations frequently causes a dependence on internal solutions. The transference of responsibility to a national level, in effect, means a reversion to an international system in which entirely autonomous, sovereign states function independently from one another and, therefore, are solely responsible for addressing internal issues and avoiding violations. This is particularly damaging for the avoidance of human rights internationally, since ‘sovereignty is typically the mantle behind which rights-abusive regimes hide when faced with international human rights criticism’ (Donnelly, 2002, p. 108). To dispute this, cosmopolitan arguments would use the precedence of an international responsibility to avoid human rights violations over an unquestioned loyalty to Westphalian sovereignty. However, the political system that exists within nations continues to affect the extent to which human rights are respected, limiting further the claim to universal human rights in the current international structure.

The prevalence of internal factors in determining loyalty to human rights prevention renders certain systems more likely to violate the human rights of their citizens than others. Neumayer highlights the importance of democracy, suggesting that its absence is linked ‘with more human rights violations’ (2005, p. 926). This contrast between democracy and alternative forms of governance can be attributed to the control that dictators wield over all echelons of power. This characteristic has serious implications for limiting the accessibility to human rights and, consequently, the extent to which they are universal, as it is near impossible to control ‘actors at the apex of the regime who concentrate the power to make and unmake rules’ (Barros, 2001, p.8).

The influence of dictatorships over specific states is undeniable and represents a clear example of how human rights are not universal in practise, especially since dictators have the power to provide rights to some and restrict the rights of others. The Chilean constitution of 1980, for example, greatly strengthened the political hold of Pinochet over Chilean politics and enabled him to maintain power, despite extensive and public human rights violations within the period. Similarly, the Amnesty Law of 1978 ‘conformed with this model’ (Borzutzky, 2007, p. 178) of dictatorial control, making violations easier, with security against reprimand having been made more secure. This example is mirrored in the extensive state sponsored violence perpetrated under Videla’s military dictatorship in Argentina. The Peruvian example, though, places doubt regarding the direct link between dictatorship and violations on human rights, since it was after the period of dictatorship and within the democratic transition that Peru experienced its most brutal period of human rights violations. Although appearing to weaken the proposed link between liberal democracy and the preservation of human rights, and, accordingly, the influence of political systems on human rights prevention, this example has important implications for the universal nature of human rights, in a broader sense. Since violations can and do occur in democratic nations, there must be other factors acting internally that would cause or, indeed, catalyze violations. These internal factors are indisputably variable and affect each country differently, as can be seen from the contrasting causes within Latin America in the late twentieth century. Whilst the link between varying political systems and human rights remain arguable, internal factors of specific countries do undeniably continue to affect, in a dramatic sense, the extent to which human rights abuses are avoided. While this variation persists, the accessibility of human rights will vary hugely internationally, damaging any claim that human rights are universal in any practical sense.

The legality of human rights in the international arena is as contradictory and ambiguous as it is at national level. Whilst frameworks such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (United Nations Human Rights Council since 2006) existed throughout this period of extensive violations in Latin America, Donnelly argues that the way these structures are perceived, as beyond national constitutions, limits their effectiveness. He identifies that in most countries ‘it is striking how far one can go before human rights arguments become necessary’ (2002, p.13). In some states, these rights are constitutionally enshrined, and, therefore, one does not need to make any claim to higher international powers that reach above the hold of the state. Again, this highlights the inequalities between states because their differing constitutions are commonly used as a first resort for dealing with violations, whilst the way in which they do this varies immensely.

International law also fails to provide a consensual understanding of universal human rights, in a further sense. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states in article two that:

“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.”

This would, in theory, give legality to any state willing to intervene to enforce the human rights that all citizens are theoretically entitled to, with the naming of human rights as the motivator with the most priority in international politics. The problem occurs, however, with the contradictions of international law. Article 55 of The UN Charter, for example, states the importance of ‘self determination’ (1945), namely the ability to politically manage one’s own affairs within their jurisdiction. This could justify the role of independent states in deciding the extent to which human rights are upheld, a dangerous idea considering the integral role of dictatorships and the overwhelming prominence of state sponsored violence in nations such as Argentina, Chile and Guatemala. For this reason, international law is often difficult to consult, as it stipulates a need for respecting a state’s independence in human rights affairs, but also the ability to bypass this sovereignty if necessary. According to Anderson, ‘[c]itizens’ perceptions of human rights conditions in a country are systematically related to that country’s actual conditions of government repression’ (2002, p. 439). If this were true, then, perhaps, states should be entitled to override the sovereignty of a state if it is the sovereign ruler who is neglecting to provide the entitled rights to their citizens. The issue, though, again lies with the ability of states to interpret their own obligations within the ambiguous statutory. This ultimately means that the possibility to universalise human rights using international law as a legitimate justification remains impossible. Until this matter is clarified within the statutes that guide state behaviour, accessibility to human rights will continue to vary between nations.

The way states relate to one another is central to the question of whether human rights are universal. During the twentieth century, this relationship has changed dramatically with regards to culture, economics, immigration and justice. Inevitably, how human rights are conceptualised and implemented has been affected. The growth of globalisation has created an economic interdependence that causes international problems, necessitating global solutions to combat them. As a reaction, globalisation has also taken its toll in the political sphere, with NGOs capturing ‘considerable institutional space as governments restructure’ (Keese, 2006, p. 115) to reflect the new global solutions required at an international level. The translation of decisions, previously internalised within nations, into the international arena has caused a ‘state power decline as transnational decision making increasingly takes precedence over national decision-making processes’ (Evans, 2001, p. 626).

The significance of NGOs has had profound effects on the possibility of maximising accessibility to human rights globally. With links to arguments concerning universal jurisdiction, NGOs represent a means of lessening border significance, therefore, limiting the extent to which internal variables facilitate human rights abuses. This is most evident in examples following periods of violence and violation in Latin America. In Uruguay, for example, NGOs played a huge part in pushing for truth commissions demonstrating an influence that would be effective in bypassing any impunity enshrined by regimes that are themselves perpetrators of human rights violations. Working simultaneously, universal jurisdiction and the rise of NGOs are mutually beneficial and demonstrate a means of holding perpetrators to account, without damaging the international order in the way that state intervention could. Borzutzsy notices this, highlighting the fact that Pinochet’s arrest in London ‘energized the human rights NGOs’ (2007, p. 179). This process means that as globalisation intensifies, NGOs will, in theory, continue to become more effective, justifying the conclusion that accessibility to human rights will increase and maximising the universal nature of such rights.

The concept of Human Rights is incredibly important in international relations, as it is inherently linked to ideas of sovereignty, justice and responsibility. As has been seen in Latin America, human rights violations are neither formulaic nor predictable. Philosophers remain inconclusive and divided regarding the extent to which human rights are universal, with opinions that are determined by distinct conceptualisations of justice and responsibility. Within practical international relations, however, it appears obvious that human rights are currently far from universal, as their accessibility is limited to certain nations and repeatedly restricted from others. This inequality should alert the international community to the importance of addressing the issue. This could be done in two very distinct ways. In order to address the issue of variation in accessibility to human rights between nations, the international community must enshrine an obligation towards humanitarian intervention so as to avoid the ability of states to place ulterior motives with precedence over a protection of human rights. This is already being seen with the growing acceptance of universal jurisdiction in the international realm and also, significantly, with the growing importance of NGOs focussed on human rights protection. Secondly, rather than stagnating international relations, nations must accept their moral obligations to promote human rights and translate their interdependence in the realm of the economy to the one of humanitarianism. They must allow human rights to play a role in relations between states, accepting the responsibilities to promote human rights that the international community has pledged to fulfil. If this does not occur and states continue to overlook catastrophes similar to those witnessed in Latin America, any claims to universal human rights will remain hugely undermined.

Bibliography

ANDERSON, C.J., REGAN, P.M. and OSTERGARD, R.L. 2002. Political Repression and Public Perceptions of Human Rights. Political Research Quarterly . 55 (2), pp. 439-456

BARROS, R. Personalization and Institutional Constraints: Pinochet, the Military Junta, and the 1980 Constitution. Latin American Politics and Society. 43 (1) pp. 5-28

BORZUTZKY, S. 2007. The Politics of Impunity: The Cold War, State Terror, Trauma, Trials and Reparations in Argentina and Chile. Latin American Research Review . 42 (1) pp. 167-185

CARDENAS, S. 2011. Human Rights in Latin America: A Politics of Terror and Hope . Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press

DONNELLY, J. 2002. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press

EVANS, T. 2001. If Democracy, Then Human Rights?. Third World Quarterly. 22 (4), pp. 623-642

GOLDBERG, P.A. The Politics of the Allende Overthrow in Chile. Political Science Quarterly . 90 (1), pp. 93-116

KEESE, J.R. and ARGUDO, M.F. Decentralisation and NGO-Municipal Government Collaboration in Ecuador. Development in Practise. 16 (2) pp. 114-127

JONAS, S. 1996. Dangerous Liaisons: The U. S. in Guatemala. Foreign Policy . (103) pp. 144-160

LANGER, M. 2011. The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes. The American Journal of International Law . 105 (1) pp. 1-49

NEUMAYER, E. 2005. Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?. The Journal of Conflict Resolution . 49 (6), pp. 925-953

NICKEL, J.W. 1987. Making sense of Human Rights: Philosophical Reflections on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Los Angeles: University of California Press

POGGE, T.W. 1992. Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics. 103 (1), pp. 48-75

SHAPCOTT, R. 2008. International Ethics. In: J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens, eds. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations . New York: Oxford University Press

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. [online]. [Accessed: 21 st October 2011]. Available from World Wide Web: < http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a2 >

The Charter of the United Nations, 1945. [online]. [Accessed 21 st October 2011]. Available from World Wide Web:< http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml >

— Written by: Joe Derry-Malone Written at: University of Leeds Written for: Cara Levey Date written: December 2011

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

Recent Posts

September 14th, 2016

Are human rights really ‘universal, inalienable, and indivisible’.

4 comments | 160 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

By Leila Nasr*

Eleanor Roosevelt inspects a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949. (Creative Commons)

Following centuries of ongoing revision, repetition and reconceptualisation, international human rights theory and practice continues to grapple with three integral concepts: universality, inalienability, and indivisibility. These concepts are perceived as being essential to its continued validity, yet themselves also embody human rights’ most pressing critiques.

Human Rights as Universal

Universal human rights theory holds that human rights apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being human. The most obvious challenge to the universality factor comes from ‘cultural relativism’, which maintains that universal human rights are neo-imperialistic and culturally hegemonic . While this perspective may be tempting, the relativist argument encompasses a debilitating self-contradiction; by postulating that the only sources of moral validity are individual cultures themselves, one is precluded from making any consistent moral judgements. Further, the cultural relativist in fact makes a universalist judgement in arguing that ‘tolerance’ is the ultimate good to be respected above all. Hence, it is a naturally self-refuting theory that engages universalism in its own rejection of the concept. In a practical sense, the cultural relativist position is foundationally incompatible with human rights, as human rights themselves could not exist if they were stripped of common moral judgement.

And yet, the question remains: even if human rights must be universal in order to remain coherent, what should we do when faced with practices or cultures with which ‘our’ version of human rights clashes? Should we stand idly by when atrocities are committed? Surely not. While universal human rights should not be geographically or culturally ‘flexible’ (so as not to undercut their entire purpose), we must see the continuum of rights and culture as relational, not exclusive.

Along this vein, some have argued that we actually need to see human rights as a culture in and of itself – a collective learning about what is in the best interests of humans around the world. This is because, as cultures are non-homogenous and inherently malleable, so too must be their conceptualisations of human rights. Essentially, human rights must be able to absorb cultural difference.

Further still, other commentators have taken issue with the question itself, noting that dichotomised and uncompromising questions over whether human rights should be universal or not actually tend to “arbitrate the correct form of human existence” . In this way, the ability of human agency to integrate, move between and even override cultures is often overlooked. Instead, he argues that the best way forward is for people remain aware of alternative value systems to be able to freely move in and out of them as per their preference. While this may be seen as too liberal or individualistic (as is a common critique of ‘western’ human rights), it best gets to the core of what the purpose of human rights ought to return to: the human.

Human Rights as Inalienable

By definition, inalienability involves the “ inability of something to be taken from or given away by the possessor ”. While the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence , the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man , and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights repeatedly affirmed that rights were inalienable, it remains today that very few can agree on the meaning of this.

Early philosophers and scholars such as Locke , Mason and Lilburne spoke of natural rights in terms of inherentness, natality and inability to be surrendered, helping later thinkers better conceptualise the core of inalienability by asking who the ‘human’ is in human rights.

Constant debate on this topic has brought out the best and worst in more recent philosophers. For example, one scholar notes that one must contribute to both self and society in an autonomous capacity in order to be a rights-bearing person. He thus doubts whether rights could possibly apply to infants, the “ severely mentally retarded ”, or people in irreversible comas . Thankfully, others have stepped away from crude biological distinctions to conceptually consider the multiplicity of ways in which one might be considered ‘unhuman’ such as through heavily gendered and animal-human power dichotomies [1] . In such cases, victims are often stripped of their personhood and basic rights, revealing the alienability of rights in practice.

Along this vein, Hannah Arendt articulated one of the most timeless perspectives on inalienability on the backdrop of the Holocaust. Noting the lack of tangible access to rights experiences by refugees by virtue of their statelessness, Arendt concluded that the only true right was ‘the right to have rights’ in the sense that modern rights had become linked inextricably to the emancipated national state. Of course, important critiques have been lodged against Arendt, such as that of Jacques Rancière , who finds that humans can never be entirely depoliticised and devoid of rights (even when stateless) as they are inherently political beings by the mere fact of birth. However, while somewhat convincing, Rancière’s critique should easily be dismissed as far too abstract to be of great use in the face of the severe and ultimately tangible human rights violations occurring today.

Given today’s challenges of displacement and statelessness, it therefore seems more helpful to eschew abstract reasoning surrounding inalienability and acknowledge that rights are inseparable from statehood and citizenship in the international human rights system. As Arendt reasoned, “ inalienability has turned out to be unenforceable ”.

Human Rights as Indivisible

Turning to indivisibility, this principle maintains that the implementation of all rights simultaneously is necessary for the full functioning of the human rights system. Beyond discussions of violations, indivisibility is equally the idea that no human right can be fully implemented or realised without fully realising all other rights. Those who fall within the indivisibility camp reason that the enforcement of human rights is arbitrary and incomplete without a commitment to indivisibility, and that anything less than simultaneous implementation of all human rights may fuel dangerous rights prioritisations by governments (i.e. emphasising first or second generation rights while neglecting third generation ones will mean that all rights values suffer).

Issues surrounding the prioritisation and partial fulfilment of human rights are at the core of the indivisibility question. Here, Nickel makes a number of strong arguments against indivisibility by distinguishing the concept from interdependence. For example, an arm and leg are not mutually indispensable (indivisible) because one can function without the other. While they may be interdependent to some extent, they are not indivisible. Conversely, a heart and brain cannot function irrespective of each other, thus making them indivisible by definition. Such is the distinction we must make with human rights, too.

It isn’t necessary for every single right to be fully realised in order for the others to mean anything at all. If this were not the case, it may be terrible news for developing countries; rather, such countries do not automatically enter into conflict with the principle of indivisibility if they prioritise some rights over others along a given timeline in light of available resources. This line of thought is an important critique of others, such as Donnelly , who insists on the centrality of system-wide indivisibility, and whose argument fails to appreciate this indivisibility-interdependency distinction.

It is therefore apparent that some of the most widely accepted and central tenants of human rights – universality, inalienability, and indivisibility – emerge as highly contentious upon close inspection. Yet, rather than undercutting the entire concept of human rights, these critiques simply remind us to continually revaluate our assumptions of rights to make them ever more inclusive and ever more tangible to those who remain on the outside, looking in.

[1] Rorty uses the example of the dehumanization of Bosnian Muslims at the hands of Serbian soldiers during the Bosnian war. He explains that this reduced Bosnian Muslim to an ‘animal-like’, or non-human status relative to his/her oppressor, thus stripping the victim of any relevance in discussions on ‘human’ rights.

*Leila Nasr is the Lead Editor of the LSE Human Rights Blog. She can be reached at [email protected].

About the author

In China human rights are not universal because the leaders of the government do not consider all of their fellow citizens as equally fully educated or accomplished human beings.

Does the human rights achieve its intentional peace

Thanks for this literaly I am desperately looking for this topic

1933 film Gabriel In The White House is a must watch on this topic and many others, as it is 100% relevant when discussion 2020 United States and global relationships.

Rights, exceptions, and the spirit of human rights

June 8th, 2014.

‘In conversation with Amartya Sen’ at the LSE

November 16th, 2015, the poverty of human rights, july 7th, 2014.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

Updated on
Dec 9, 2023

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf.

What are Human Rights

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Did you know that the 10th of December is celebrated as Human Rights Day ?

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Chronicle Conversations
Article archives
Issue archives

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 75: Our Shared Values and Path to Solutions

About the author, volker türk.

Volker Türk is United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

8 December 2023

O n 10 December 1948, a fledgling United Nations took a momentous step. In adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it laid down a promise of a world to be rebuilt—after the horrors of global war, the Holocaust, economic depression and the atomic bomb—on the firm foundations of our inherent rights.

While the community of States was fewer in number, the drafters of the Declaration came from every region and, in turn, drew on wisdom and experience across cultures and eras to set out our freedoms. The rights to live free from discrimination and from torture, the rights to education and to adequate food, and so much more.

The influence of the Declaration in the decades since has been remarkable, playing a unique role in strides forward on women’s equality; in progress on education and health; in the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa; and, indeed, in the victories of independence over colonial rule. The Declaration also inspired a glorious flourishing of civil society, itself hugely instrumental in both developing and advancing the rights agenda. This landmark document is also the point of origin for our rich tapestry of international human rights treaties, laws, instruments and mechanisms.

Despite so much progress, we are still far from the world envisaged by the Declaration’s framers and find ourselves contending with a determined pushback on rights. It would be a mistake, though, to dismiss the Declaration as a relic from a more benign and optimistic time. Its drafters emerged from an era ravaged by vicious cycles of destruction, terror and poverty, and in the face of a deepening ideological divide, remained undaunted in laying down a map towards a world more peaceful and just, in recognition of our shared humanity and our equal worth.

Today, this map is more relevant than ever. As so horrifically illustrated by the unbearable suffering in recent weeks in Gaza and Israel, conflicts are raging at their highest level since 1945 with scant regard for the protection of civilians. We face skyrocketing inequalities, corrosive polarization within and between States, ongoing curbs on civic space and ungoverned acceleration in digital technology. All of these destabilizing and destructive trends fuel the triple planetary crisis, one that is truly existential in nature.

As we navigate these fractious and uncertain times, the Declaration’s enduring power lies in its promise of rights as solutions . Non-ideological and deeply rooted in the shared values of our “human family”, its principles can transcend geopolitical and social divides, drawing instead on our deepest reflexes—solidarity, empathy and connection. Comprehensive in its scope, it encourages solutions that are complementary—essential given the multitude of challenges we face. Its call for free and meaningful participation is the key to the broad engagement necessary for solutions to be both effective and legitimate.

Advancing the rights of every person, everywhere, is the only way to address the root causes of conflict.

Human rights approaches are the only way to make development inclusive, participatory and sustainable; to shape laws that are just and, therefore, trusted to resolve disputes; to make our societies equitable; and to ensure accountability and promote reconciliation. Human rights are also the ultimate tool of prevention , a simple truth brought home to me repeatedly in my decades working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on situations of failed prevention.

In a world changing at a frenetic pace, failure to uphold rights will not result in stasis. On the contrary, it will lead to escalating grievance, pain and violence, alongside a loss of our ability to work together to solve problems. The seventy-fifth anniversary of the Declaration is, therefore, a moment that calls for concerted action: first, through establishing a renewed worldwide commitment to the values embodied in the Declaration; second, by capitalizing on this momentum to drive transformative progress on rights, drawing on innovative approaches along with a willingness to interrogate the very way we think about the future landscape for rights.

With one quarter of humanity currently living in places affected by conflict, we risk a future that perpetuates these convulsive cycles of suffering and destruction, along with the prospect of declining respect for the laws of war—the very guarantors of our humanity, our collective red lines.

So much loss, so much pain that is all too preventable. Repression, injustice, discrimination, extreme inequality, lack of accountability—all seed the malign conditions from which violence erupts. It is clear that the path to enduring peace lies through human rights. Advancing the rights of every person, everywhere, is the only way to address the root causes of conflict. And this means all rights.

One of the priority areas for United Nations Human Rights is a significant step-up in our work on economic, social and cultural rights, which have been for too long artificially, and unhelpfully, sidelined in human rights discourse and action. The reality is that, today, most economies are human rights-free zones with disastrous outcomes for people and planet. Our concept of the Human Rights Economy advocates, instead, for economic, trade, industrial, social and environmental policies to be guided by human rights standards, with their success measured by the degree to which rights are enjoyed by everyone. This applies equally for business models, investment decisions and consumer choices.

This kind of fundamental shift has the potential to unlock progress on all rights; not least, because it encourages meaningful civic participation in decision-making, particularly for women and others routinely marginalized. This helps tackle the underlying causes of inequalities and grievances, rebuild trust in government and each other, and target policies to actual need.

We also urgently need to develop human rights guardrails for international financial and development institutions. Governments should not be corralled into choosing between investing in rights and repaying foreign debt. They should be able to ring-fence investments in measurable improvements in levels of respect for the rights, for example, to education and health, ahead of debt repayment.

Our planetary crisis is another area in which it is painfully evident that we need to shift course decisively and immediately. Otherwise, no one will escape the terrible consequences. In the meantime, those who have the least—and are least responsible—pay the heaviest cost, including with their lives.

Human rights, such as the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, offer a road map for preventing and remediating the harms caused by environmental crises in a more effective, inclusive and sustainable way. This includes ensuring that the transition away from fossil fuel dependency is a just one, placing the voices and needs of affected individuals and communities at the heart of policymaking.

Human rights also offer us a resilient pathway for responding to accelerating advances in digital technology. This is the case even in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), where extraordinary opportunities, including for the stalled 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, sit alongside unprecedented risks that are far from theoretical.

Human rights are the golden thread that connects and informs every issue on the global agenda, as they do in our work within the United Nations.

We already see AI reinforcing bias in criminal justice systems, enabling mass surveillance, and fuelling polarization along with risks to elections via hate speech and disinformation proliferating online. Human rights standards direct us clearly towards the need for regulation that is supportive of innovation but strong on safeguards, from human rights risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of AI systems to independent oversight and access to remedy.

Technology, environment, inequality, peace and security—all of these will be at the forefront of the 2024 Summit of the Future . Human rights will be integral to this crucial effort to recast multilateralism for today’s demands and those yet to come. Human rights are the golden thread that connects and informs every issue on the global agenda, as they do in our work within the United Nations, from conflict prevention and peacekeeping to development, climate and good governance.

My Office will be feeding into the Summit through a Vision for Human Rights for the next quarter century, reflecting key insights and recommendations from our year-long Human Rights 75 initiative, which marks the Declaration’s anniversary. Alongside nurturing a diverse, global constituency, including youth, in support of human rights, this initiative has generated important pledges from States and others with the potential to deliver transformational change. These pledges will take centre stage at the initiative’s concluding High-Level Event on 11 and 12 December 2023, hosted in Geneva with participation in regional hubs and worldwide online.

This moment will be one, certainly, of deep reflection, but also, one of determination. At a time of perpetual crisis—when problems seem intractable and discord reigns—we must return to our core values, embodied in human rights, to show us the route towards a world more peaceful, sustainable and fair.

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. 

Monument to the 1795 slave revolt in Curacao.

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

For two centuries, emancipated Black people have been calling for reparations for the crimes committed against them.

A group of self advocates at a World Down Syndrome Day event in Kenya. ©Down Syndrome Society of Kenya, 2023.

World Down Syndrome Day: A Chance to End the Stereotypes

The international community, led by the United Nations, can continue to improve the lives of people with Down syndrome by addressing stereotypes and misconceptions.

Houses and parked cars in Jerteh, Terengganu, Malaysia, 2020. Pok Rie

Population and Climate Change: Decent Living for All without Compromising Climate Mitigation

A rise in the demand for energy linked to increasing incomes should not be justification for keeping people in poverty solely to avoid an escalation in emissions and its effects on climate change.

Documents and publications

Yearbook of the United Nations
Basic Facts About the United Nations
Journal of the United Nations
Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

Dag Hammarskjöld Library
UN Audiovisual Library
UN Archives and Records Management
Audiovisual Library of International Law
UN iLibrary

News and media

UN News Centre
UN Chronicle on Twitter
UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

17 Goals to Transform Our World
Official observances
United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
Protecting Human Rights
Maintaining International Peace and Security
The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
United Nations Careers

Why Human Rights Are Universal

In 1948, 50 member states of the UN came together to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . In its 30 articles, it lays out the rights all humans deserve, regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender or any other status. For these rights to apply to you, all you had to be was human. It seems obvious to many of us that human rights should be universal , but there are critics of this idea. What are they saying and do they have a point? What’s the proper response?

Do “human rights” ignore cultural differences?

One of the main arguments against universal human rights appears to be that it ignores culture. How can rights apply to everyone, when there are so many differences between cultures? Critics question the UDHR document specifically, saying it’s biased towards Western ideals, and that it’s essentially a way for the West to force their views on the world. It’s not hard to see their point, considering countries like the United States use human rights as an excuse to invade areas, but then ignore human rights abuses elsewhere. This makes it seem like the concept of universal human rights is more political than anything else. Are universal human rights simply a way to justify Western expansion and the erasure of the traditions and culture of other countries? Not at all.

Response to criticisms

The most clear response to this criticism is to point to how the UDHR was created. It wasn’t steered by Western countries. In fact, it was a delegate from Egypt who proposed that human rights should be considered universal. Many of the social and economic rights in the document were also spearheaded by Arab States and even the Soviet Union. When the document was finished, two-thirds of the endorsements came from non-Western countries.

It’s also important to note that many of the universal human rights are not specific prescriptions. Rather, they are the rights to be free “from” something. They are not exact blueprints on what a society that honors human rights needs to do, but rather, what that kind of society should not do, i.e. keep people in slavery, discriminate based on gender and race, and torture. According to human rights activists and researchers, it seems like the majority of criticisms against human rights come from leaders and states that want to infringe on rights. Using the concept of “tradition” as a mask, authoritarian structures seek to continue violating the rights of the most vulnerable people, like ethnic or religious minorities, women, and children.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other organizations research these violations and their connection to old traditions and culture. Some examples include Kenya, where women wanting to own property or inherit are discriminated against, and Afghanistan, where forced marriages still occur. In Indonesia, there’s virgin testing; in Iraq, honor crimes are still legal; and for years in Ethiopia, female circumcision was regularly practiced. Take note of who is being oppressed by these “traditions.” Actual citizens and people living in those countries do not see those violations as a positive part of their culture, and they want change. If something is harmful, why shouldn’t it end? Why shouldn’t human rights that challenge destructive actions apply to everyone?

What does change look like?

Overall, it’s globally-recognized that human rights can and should be universal, but how they actually become that in practice is a much more divisive question. Hypocrisy is rampant among states crowing the loudest about “human rights,” which weakens the universality and effectiveness of human rights. It’s all too-easy for critics to point to this failing and argue that it’s impossible for human rights to be universal. What’s the solution? It won’t be a quick fix.

First, countries boasting about human rights must actually do something about them, and not rest on their laurels and count how many treaties they’ve signed. These same countries must also take a hard look at their records at home and their consistency, so “human rights” doesn’t become a mask for consolidating power abroad. For human rights to be universally respected, countries should not be picking and choosing which abuses they care about.

Next, human rights must be seen as compatible with all cultures. Too many authoritarian leaders and states push back against human rights, using tradition as an excuse. In 2012, when the Botswana High Court ruled in favor of four sisters trying to keep their home, which went against traditional law, the judges wrote that “Culture changes with time.” By 2025, Ethiopia hopes to end FGM and early marriage. The human rights groups and leaders behind these changes focus on the transformation of culture and tradition. To embrace human rights, a country doesn’t need to throw out all of their culture. Culture progresses and evolves with time, thanks to the voices of those who’ve been historically silenced. Those voices should continue to be amplified for human rights to become universal .

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

The Universality of Human Rights

Introduction.

“Human rights are “universal” rights in the sense that they are held “universally” by all human beings” (Donnelly 2007, p.4). Human rights are also said to be universal because most cultures and societies have upheld the concept of human rights throughout their history (Donnelly 2007). Therefore, the concept of human rights is acknowledged worldwide. For instance, most teachings in the Koran encourage the protection of human rights. In addition, traditional African societies strongly advocate for human rights. Moreover, the protection of human rights is an important doctrine in the traditions of Asians. However, some countries maintain that this concept is incompatible with some of their cultures. Therefore, there are divergent views on the universality of human rights. Some countries uphold this concept due to international pressure. This report discusses the universality of human rights.

Legal Enforcement of Universal Human Rights

The universality of human rights was legally enforced after United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Donnelly 2007). This declaration was adopted after United Nations’ members were convinced that the concept of human rights is universal. However, enforcement of international human rights norms was left to independent states (Donnelly 2007). In addition, the international community was given the right to intervene in situations involving massive human rights violations. The relationship between an individual and the state is also an important aspect of the concept of human rights (Donnelly 2007). Accordingly, to halt (2012), sovereign states are instruments whose main function is to serve the interests of their citizens. For that reason, the international legal system dwells more on an individual than the state (Halt 2012).

Disagreements on the Universality of Human Rights

Universal protection of human rights has very few opponents worldwide (Donnelly 2007). Nonetheless, some countries argue that the concept of human rights is incompatible with some of their values (Donnelly 2007). These countries maintain that cultural diversity should be left to determine whether certain occurrences are a violation of human rights or not. On the other hand, proponents of the concept of human rights argue that violations of human rights must be checked. In addition, atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and rape should receive the strongest condemnation. To guard against impunity, perpetrators of such atrocities must also be punished.

Examples of Situations Where Universality of Human Rights Was Applied

Sovereignty is derived from people and, therefore, their rights, interest, and security must be prioritized. State sovereignty has a legal value only when it respects human rights (halt 2012). Consequently, the principle of Right to Protect (R2P) has replaced that of sovereignty as the first principle of international law. For that reason, in situations involving massive human rights violations, other states have the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of an independent state. An example of a case where R2P was prioritized over the principle of sovereignty was when India intervened in Bangladesh. This was after millions of Bengalis were forced to flee to India due to a conflict in their country (Chatham House 2007).

Conclusions

Most cultures and societies have upheld the concept of human rights throughout their history. Therefore, this concept is acknowledged worldwide. However, the world is yet to come to a consensus on this issue. For instance, some countries claim that the concept of human rights is not compatible with their cultural values. Nonetheless, international laws prioritize the rights of an individual over those of a state. For that reason, all countries must endorse the concept of human rights.

Chatham House 2007, The principle of non-intervention in contemporary international Law: non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be rule of international law: is it still? Web.

Donnelly, J 2007, ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights’ , Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 29 no 2, pp. 281-306.

Halt, B 2012, The legal character of R2P and the UN Charter. Web.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, July 15). The Universality of Human Rights. https://studycorgi.com/the-universality-of-human-rights/

"The Universality of Human Rights." StudyCorgi , 15 July 2022, studycorgi.com/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'The Universality of Human Rights'. 15 July.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Universality of Human Rights." July 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Universality of Human Rights." July 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "The Universality of Human Rights." July 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

This paper, “The Universality of Human Rights”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: July 15, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)

Human’s rights as the attribute of society, the four schools of thoughts: observing the perspectives, natural school: the natural course of events, protest school: opposing the situation, deliberative school: agreeing upon the basics, discourse school: when it is the right time to talk, multiculturalism in different forms, human rights and linguistic diversity, reference list.

In contrast to the other institutions that suggest a single form of the notion existing in the given society, the area of human rights allows to switch the shapes of the very notion of human rights according to the sphere it is applied to. In spite of the fact that the core idea of the human rights remains the same, the form it takes can vary depending on the field of use. The universality of human rights allows them to get into every single part of people’s lives, and this is a subject that needs further exploration.

The way the human rights are interpreted now does not differ from the basic principles set by the founders of democracy. Throughout the centuries, the main idea of human rights remained the same, claiming every single person to have the package of rights that are to be inherent and be an integral part of living a full life of a free man. Set long time ago and representing the range of freedoms that have been proclaimed since the times of the French Revolution, these right still speak of the democracy in motion, demanding the constitutional law and the recognition of a man’s liberty. The situation has not changed much since then, the established rights for life, education, voting and freedom of speech, remain the same.

However, there have been some amendments that presupposed certain improvements, but the basics were left untouched. Nowadays, almost every country can claim that it suggests a full range of the necessary rights and freedoms to its citizens. The democracy principles spread all around the world, and the modern society seems to have all the attributes to be called democratic for recognizing people’s right and freedoms in full. However, it is still curious how the law that outlines the most important points of human rights can convey the idea, and the way this idea can switch its shape as it transgresses from one sphere of analytical and philosophical thinking into another one.

Dembour (2006) defines human rights as the most obvious things that should actually be taken for granted, without clarifying them in such a detailed manner in the set of laws, “One claims a human right in the hope of ultimately creating a society in which such claims will be no longer necessary” (p. 248). The existence of the four schools of human right can explain the fact of these rights switching their shape so suddenly and with such a scale. There four schools consider human rights in absolutely different light. The ideas of different scholars may be considered from the point of view of those four schools of thought. A lot of scholars dwelling upon human rights in the relation to multiculturalism and language refered themselves to one of the Dembour’s schools.

One of the most well-known schools is probably the natural school that considers human rights as they are given, in plain. Presupposing that human rights are something that one has been granted since the day of birth, the followers of this school suggest that the subject under discussion can be valued from the point of view of the plain nature. Eriksen (1996) supports this idea dwelling upon the fact that different nations can exist together on the basis of understanding this idea. Taylor (1994) also supports this idea claiming people with different understanding of human rights may respect each other and perceive them as they are.

The idea that this philosophy conveys is that a person’s rights are the incorporation of the laws of nature and it presupposes that people should act according to their inner understanding of their rights and freedoms. This theory is close to idealism, which is supported by Donelly (2003) who is sure that people have rights “simply because one is a human being” (p. 10).

As opposed to natural school of thought, protest school of thought believes that human rights cannot be considered as a universal notion because they are limited to such concepts as morality, dignity, and moral integrity (Dembour, 2006, p. 236). In particular, the supporters of this concept find some political and intellectual inferences related to human rights. They believe that universality of human rights fails to consider the dignity and individuality of each person. More importantly, the theory suggests that human rights impose a kind of responsibility on each individual.

If to consider human freedom as one of inherent components of human rights, one should be aware of the fact that all freedoms enjoyed by individuals should be deserved first. Indeed, a person takes all existing freedoms for granted finding it unnecessary to fight for them. They agree with the assumption that freedom is an innate right of humans (Denbour, 2006, p. 237). This position also reveals that illusionary possession of the fundamental freedoms should be protected by law.

This school of thoughts can be interpreted through visions and outlooks of Varennes (2007). In particular, his point of view is narrowed to the idea that language right should protected on equal basis with human rights because it reveals their identity and responsibility for their culture and country. Hence, Varennes (2007) states, “…the use of a language in private activities can be in breach of existing international human rights such as the rights to private and family right” (p. 117).

Drawing the line between the protest scholars, language right should be protected by law as well. Such a position explains Varennes’ affiliation to this theoretical framework. The problem of linguistic justice is also considered by Patten and Kymlicka (2003) and Wei (2009) who believe that should be linguistic justice because it is an inherent component of human rights.

As compared with natural and protest theoretical framework whose primary concerns are based on a strong belief in human rights, deliberate school of thought are fully loyal to this concept. They conceive human rights as an idealistic conception that exists regardless of human experience. According to this school, “human rights are thus no more than legal and political standards; they not moral, and certainly not religious, standards” (Dembour, 2006, p. 248). Therefore, the limited perception of human rights impels the scholars to believe that this phenomenon is nothing else but adjudication.

While analyzing different ideas and positions, Dembour (2006) concludes that deliberate theorists find human rights beyond political and legal dependence. Rather, they compare them with religion, stating that it is a universal notion existing outside the context of morality, law and politics. Due to the fact that human rights are perceived as something secular, deliberate school of thought subjects this conception to idolatry.

Following the main concepts of deliberate school, Aikman (1995) provides his own vision of linguistic diversity and cultural maintenance that should be preserved irrespective of laws and politics because it is more connected with social needs and socio-cultural environment in the country. More importantly, Boumann (1999) provides the separatist vision of linguistic rights in correlation of his position to its universality. In particular, the scholar beliefs that multiculturalism and human right should be reevaluated and be more connected with ethnic and religious identity, but not political and legal perspectives.

Although Biseth (2008) seems to be more radical in his vision of multiculturalism, the scholar also represents deliberate school of though believing that linguistic diversity is inevitable due to diversity in culture and cultural heritage. In particular, Biseth (2008) stands for equality and universality of human right with regard to linguistic right, which should be perceived as something integral and inherent to a human. In general all the above-presented scholars agree with the necessity to perceive linguistic right as something independent from politics and law.

Dwelling upon discourse school of thought and relating it to the human rights, it is possible to states that Dembour (2006) defined the scholars who belonged to this school as those who, “not only insist that there is nothing natural about human rights, they also question the fact that human rights are naturally good” (p. 251). The representatives of this school are sure that those human rights exist only because people talk about them. Moreover, Dembour (2006) believes that if the notion of human rights does not exist, so there is nothing to fight for and to protect.

Koenig and Guchteneire (2007) believe that due to high rate of migration and international communication human rights became international and there is nothing to discourse about. It is possible to refer Holmarsdottir (2009) to this school of thought as his ideas are closely connected to the ideas presented by Dembour (2006). Holmarsdottir (2009) is sure that there are no human rights which have been given to people since their birth. Only the government can give people their rights. He writes, “a government is considered as having as exclusive right to make and implement policy in the interest of all the people” (Holmarsdottir, 2009, p. 223).

All these ideas and perspectives may be easily considered from the point of view of multiculturalism and language problem in the concept of human rights.

It is important to remember that different cultures presuppose in some cases absolutely dissimilar norms and rules. In this case, human rights policies are not an exception. But, there is the tendency that many counties live in the multicultural society, so different norms and rules should collaborate and be combined. But, it is impossible to provide in the real society. Aikman (1995) states that many indigenous peoples struggle for the right to use their languages on their territory.

The multiculturalism has entered the society of Harakmbut Amazon people so deeply that these people have to fight for the opportunity to use their native language. It is natural that the countries with the same problems create the Declarations where the status of their country is stated as bicultural and it allows people to use their native language. Thus, indigenous peoples have created the draft of the declaration which allows them to use their traditions and culture in the multicultural society they are made to live in. The text of the draft states that peoples who are influenced by other cultures can “revitalise, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, philosophies, writing system and literature” (Aikman, 1995, p. 411).

Baumann (1999) is sure that people can never understand the main idea of multiculturalism and can still see the problem there until they do not rethink the problem. According to Baumann (1999), the multiculturalism should become global “just as environmentalism and feminism need to be global to succeed” (p. 32). Thus, human rights will be followed and there will not be a problem if the whole world is involved into multicultural society. The author also states that the problems in the society are mostly solved by the civil rights which exclude foreigners. Is not it the violation of the principles of the multiculturalism (Baumann, 1999)?

The problems in the multicultural society became extremely debatable. The appearance of different politics within the problem makes it possible to become politically neutral for most people. Thus, the politics of equal dignity is based on the principle that people on the whole Planet should be equally respected. Thus, their human rights should be respected as well. This politics creates the universal human potential. The main idea of this potential is that people should be respected, no matter what ethnical group they belong to or what language they speak. Still, the problem of the relations between people in the multicultural society remains unsolved (Taylor, 1994, p. 41).

While many people dwell upon the importance of the multiculturalism and the culture globalization, Halla (2009) states that globalization of culture has absolutely negative impact on the whole society. It is important to understand that the multiculturalism in the whole world eliminates the uniqueness of the peoples and their cultures. Halla (2009) is sure that multiculturalism reduces people from using their rights to live in the country they were born in. It is really important for elite to maintain multiculturalism in the world society as in this case people are required to buy the western products and goods. On the one hand, the culture globalization has a positive effect (especially in education and in the right of choice). On the other hand, the problem is extremely sharp for small peoples who cannot resist cultural globalization and lose their unique qualities (Halla, 2009).

Dwelling upon multiculturalism and human rights, Eriksen (1996) uses the example of Mauritius. The religious, language and cultural diversity of this community is rather varied and difficult, still people in Mauritius are given an absolute freedom of which religion they may follow (there are four main religions on the island, three of which are subdivided into numerous sects), which subjects to study at school (most core subjects are options, so students are not obligated to learn the things they do not want or do not like due to their cultural or religious preferences), and which language they want to speak. Even though that the main language on the island is English, the cultural languages are spoken and supported by the society (Eriksen, 1996). Thus, the main idea of the said is that multiculturalism which does not violate human rights is the multiculturalism where the peoples with different cultures live on the same territory, but there are no quarrels and problems in the cultural question.

There are a lot of different forms how multiculturalism may be considered. Still, many people understand this notion as the impact of one culture under another one when the smaller should resists. This understanding is correct as in most cases it is so. Here is one dominant culture which influences the whole society and other nationalities should submit to the requirements provided by other nations. This form of multiculturalism is wrong. People should not be submitted to somebody only because they are stronger or are considered to be more developed. Culture is not an economy or politics, this human facility should not be measured with anything. Thus, if some people have a culture, it should be protected and no one should violate the rights of others calling this multiculturalism.

Still, there is a better form of multiculturalism which is practiced on small islands all over the world. This form of multiculturalism is like a rainbow or a salad, as opposed by Eriksen (1996). The ingredients and elements are in one and the same ‘society’, they are gathered together, but they do not try to take up each other. Living on one and the same territory people do not impose their rights and cultures on others, they just learn to live together, and this is the form of the multiculturalism which should be spread worldwide, when human rights are not violated and human uniqueness is not spoiled.

Without any doubts, the idea of human rights has already touched upon numerous aspects of life: people want to know more about their rights, they want to take as many steps as possible to improve the conditions under which they have to live, and, finally, they want to understand the main idea of their rights and define possibilities. The idea of human rights and its connection to linguistic diversity seems to be a powerful aspect to evaluate the chosen theme from. There is a certain link between language rights and human rights (Varennes, 2007).

It is usually wrong to believe that only some groups of people may have their language rights because any person has his/her own language rights, and those people whose rights are violated by the government in some way have to re-evaluate their status and their possibilities. There were many attempts to advocate language rights, and one of them was supported by the political movement in the middle of the 1960s (Wei, 2000). Still, the question concerning rights remains to be open, and a variety of discussions may take place.

Nowadays, the idea of linguistic diversity is narrowed to several languages which are defined as those with some kind of future. In fact, the power of linguistic diversity is great indeed as any language is considered to be a factor that may contribute to cultural diversity that influences the development of human rights. Linguistic diversity seems to be a serious challenge for the vast majority of democratic polities because language is usually regarded as “the most fundamental tool of communication”; this is why even if the “minorities are not in themselves bearers of collective rights, the transnational legal discourse of human rights does de-legitimize strong policies of language homogenization and clearly obliges states to respect and promote linguistic diversity” (Koenig & Guchteneire, 2007, p. 10).

So, linguistic diversity is the source of controversies, which may be developed on the political background, influence considerably human rights in various contexts, and predetermine “the stability and sustainability of a wide range of political communities” (Patten & Kymlicka, 2003, p. 3). Still, this aspect has to be regulated accordingly because it has a huge impact on the development of the relations between different people. For example, a number of politically motivated conflicts are connected with language rights which have to be established separately from other human rights.

And even the increase of inequalities depends on language rights and prevents the development of appropriate society. In case language rights and other aspects which are based on linguistic diversity do not move in accordance with people’s demands and interests, there is a threat that people can make use of their own assumptions about language policies (Holmarsdottir, 2009), and these assumptions can hardly be correct. However, Biseth (2009) admits that diversity in languages as well as competence in these languages plays an important role in social development, this is why they cannot be neglected but elaborated.

People suffer from a variety of limitations which are based on human inabilities to use their own languages but the necessity to use the official language. Such restrictions lead to people’s inabilities to get appropriate education in accordance with their interests, to participate in political life of the country a person lives in, and even to ask for justice when it is really necessary.

This is why another important aspect that has to be evaluated is how the chosen human rights perspective may influence the promotion of linguistic justice and diversity that is widely spread nowadays. Some researchers say that linguistic rights have to become one of the basic types of the existed human rights. Speakers, who use a dominant language, and linguistic majorities find the existed linguistic human rights an excellent opportunity to express their ideas and their demands. Still, there are many people, the representatives of linguistic minorities, who cannot support the idea of linguistic human rights because only the smallest part of the existed languages has the official status.

It happens that some individuals undergo unfair attitude or are suppressed by the majorities because of the language they use. Taking into consideration this fact, it is possible to say that wrongly introduced linguistic human rights may negatively influence other human rights including the political representation. The outcome of such discontents and misunderstanding is as follows: people are in need of appropriate improvements and formulations which may consider cultural heritage, educational demands, and freedom of speech.

In general, the evaluation of the human rights perspective on linguistic diversity helps to comprehend that there are many weak points in the already existed system that influences and manages a human life. People are eager to create some rules, requirements, and obligations to follow a particular order and to develop appropriate relations. Still, linguistic diversity continues developing and changing human lives. And the main point is that some researchers and scientists still find this diversity an important aspect of life that cannot be changed, and some people cannot understand the importance of this diversity as it considerably restricts human rights.

In conclusion, the question of human rights is constantly discussed in the modern world. There are different opinions on the problem, some people state that human rights even do not exist as the notion (Dembour, 2006), still, most people assure that human rights exist as the duties of the society (Donnelly, 2003). Moreover, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (UN, 1993) dwells upon the very notion of human rights and the system of international human rights which relate people to the multicultural society where those rights should be followed. The problem stands sharp in the education where students, desiring to study their own languages have to learn others. Moreover, the impact of the dominant language is rather damaging on the others who exists in one society.

It is really important to remember that living in the multicultural society and trying to adopt the cultures and traditions of other dominant nations, many peoples ruin their uniqueness, they become ordinary, forgetting their roots. As the same time, the process of culture globalization leads people to the universality of human rights. This step may be significant in preventing human rights violation in the society.

Aikman, S. (1995). Language, literacy and bilingual education. An Amazon people’s strategies for cultural maintenance. International Journal of Educational Development, 15 (4), 411-422.

Baumann, G. (1999). The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities . New York: Routledge. Web.

Biseth, H. (2009). Multilingualism and Education for Democracy. International Review of Education, 55 (1), 5-20.

Dembour, M. B. (2006). Who believes in human rights? Reflections on the European Convention . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Eriksen, T. H. (1996). Multiculturalism, Individualism and Human rights: Romanticism:The Enlightenment and Lesson from Mauritius. In R.Wilson (ed. ) Human rights, Culture and Context, Anthropological Perspective (pp. 49-69). London, Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press 47-17.

Holmarsdottir, H. (2009). A tale of two countries: language policy in Namibia and South Africa. In H. Holmarsdottir and M. O’Dowd (Eds.). Nordic Voices: Teaching and Researching Comparative and international Education in the Nordic Countries (pp. 221-238). Amsterdam: Sense.

Koenig, M., & Guchteneire, P. d. (2007). Political Governance and Cultural Diversity. In M. Koenig & P. d. Guchteneire (Eds.), Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies (pp. 3-17). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory: Context, issues and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 1-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C. (1994). The Politics of Recognition. In C. Taylor & A. Gutmann (Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

UN (1993). Vienna Declaration and programme of Action . Web.

Varennes, F. d. (2007). Language Rights as an Integral Part of Human Rights – A Legal Perspective. In M. Koenig & P. d. Guchteneire (Eds.), Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies (pp. 3-17). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Wei, Li (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In Li Wei (Ed.), The Bilingualism Reader (pp. 3-25). London: Routledge.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 1). The Universality of Human Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/

"The Universality of Human Rights." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Universality of Human Rights'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

Culture and Religion in Human Rights Universality
The Importance of Music Universality
The Universality vs. Linguistic-Relativity of Language
Theory of Culture Care Diversity and Universality
Kant’s and Friedman’s Philosophy about Theory of Universality
What Are Human Rights?
Shakespeare’s Universality: Here’s Fine Revolution
Researching of Racial Appearance in Media
Challenges for Universal Human Rights
Social Change Strategies: The Discussion
Human Rights and Resistance of South Asia
Abortion Practice in the Middle East
Cyber Practices and Moral Evaluation
Domestic Legal Traditions and State' Human Rights
The Issues of Human Rights

News and views for the UB community

Stories >

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?

Published December 17, 2015 This content is archived.

Claude Welch, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, talks about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations General Assembly nearly 70 years ago. An internationally renowned expert in human rights, Welch wrote an essay on the topic for the U.S. State Department that was published in French, Russian, Farsi and other languages, and distributed internationally.

Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) matter?

CW: The UDHR is among the most important documents of the 20th century. It has been translated into 337 different languages. It has become a touchstone for actions by governments, individuals, and nongovernmental groups. It has been ratified by every country in the world. Practically no other international instrument can claim this honor. In short, the UDHR has acquired a moral and political significance matched by few documents.

It provides both a guide to present action and an evolving set of ideas for future implementation at the national level. Increasingly, the UDHR’s principles have been embodied in what states do and it serves as the foundation for the International Bill of Rights and several other crucial human rights agreements. And, not least, the UDHR has proven a remarkably flexible foundation for a continued broadening and deepening of the very concept of human rights. How many treaties can claim such honors?

How did the UDHR come into being?

CW: Every country in the world had been touched directly or indirectly by World War II. Seventy million people perished. Planning for a future international organization to succeed the League of Nations started during the war. In the spring of 1945, 50 governments and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations met in San Francisco. The states hammered out the “constitution” of a new United Nations.

The preamble to the U.N. Charter includes these famous words: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights , in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small …”

The U.N. Charter called for a commission on human rights, which was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. With the help of the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the new Commission on Human Rights studied how different cultures, nations and philosophers viewed human rights.

In September 1948, the commission sent its draft to the U.N. General Assembly. Lengthy debates clarified the draft language and built increasing consensus. Discussion and approval took two full years, including 81 meetings, 168 amendments to the draft text and nearly 1,400 votes. The climax came on Dec. 10, 1948, when the General Assembly adopted the UDHR without a single dissenting vote, although eight states abstained.

What does the UDHR say?

CW: The UDHR sets forth a number of objectives — some to be achieved immediately, others as rapidly as feasible. The UDHR also provided the foundation for a series of other international agreements, both global and regional. Finally, the UDHR inspired people around the world to claim their rights, not simply accept the diktat of others.

The UDHR provides “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Every “individual and every organ of society” shall promote “respect for these rights and freedoms … by progressive measures ...” The goal was “to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.”

Underlying the entire declaration is a basic value, as stated in Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” This assertion ran in the face of centuries of practice and widespread beliefs. The UDHR could not, by itself, reverse or transform popular attitudes. Nonetheless, it pointed in a crucial direction.

Perhaps most important, the clarity and directness of its language inspired millions. An increasing number of translations and conscious efforts to spread the UDHR’s message popularized its principles. Men and women everywhere recognized that they enjoyed rights that no government should take away.

Drafters of the UDHR consciously drew upon several legal and philosophical traditions. Many of its 30 articles deal with civil and political rights, which protect individuals from government and from state-condoned private abuses. Others discuss freedoms common to each individual, such as the right to free expression. Still others set forth economic, social and cultural rights, such as access to education and the right to work.

What are some of the results of the UDHR?

CW: Several major treaties, ratified by more than 100 countries, trace their origins to the UDHR. They include, in chronological order:

The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
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).

When a country ratifies an international agreement, it assumes a legal obligation. Citizens of states signing on to the UDHR and its progeny thus possess rights they may not have fully enjoyed earlier because their government has acknowledged and pledged to respect those rights. Signatories to many human rights treaties must prepare and submit regular reports on their citizens’ freedoms. All these reports go to U.N. specialists who study them carefully and recommend where changes are needed.

Citizens groups increasingly provide their own reports, with additional details. Thus, one of the hopes of the drafters of the UDHR has been increasingly met: People have a voice in their own destiny.

Still other international agreements have stemmed from the UDHR:

Prosecution of indicted war criminals by the International Criminal Court, functioning as of 2002.
The “responsibility to protect,” as approved by the General Assembly in 2005, which places a moral obligation on countries to help states wracked by widespread disturbances or civil wars.
An August 2006 agreement on a draft convention on the rights of the disabled.
Adoption of a Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights by the U.N. in September 2007.
Reducing or eliminating the death penalty in much of Europe and elsewhere.
Giving more attention to how transnational corporations affect human rights where they operate.

These developments required significant discussion. Nearly 20 years passed between adoption of the UDHR and the “entry into force” — full acceptance into international law — of the two international covenants described above. Twenty-five years of discussion preceded general assembly acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights. On the other hand, agreement about establishing the International Criminal Court came within four years and the convention on children’s rights in less than a year. The picture is thus mixed.

What steps lie ahead?

CW: For six decades, the UDHR has proven its durability. Yet debates remain.

Cultural distinctiveness continues to arouse discussion about universality — the “u” in UDHR. Although the declaration’s principles have been reaffirmed time after time, some assert that cultures or regions differ so much that no real global standards can exist.

A second area of controversy swirls around the rights of persons belonging to ethnic groups and national minorities. As individuals, they cannot be discriminated against because of their backgrounds. However, long-term economic or political disadvantages, deeply engrained social attitudes, and the like against the groups to which they belong raise profound questions. Do groups per se have rights?

Additional uncertainty exists with respect to internally displaced persons. They are individuals who cannot live in their usual homes because of conflict, but have not crossed an international border. Internally displaced persons (known as IDPs) confront horrendous, dangerous living conditions. They also exist in a legal no-man’s-land. Had they left their own countries, they would have enjoyed international legal protection. Having remained at home or near home, they continue to be liable to many problems.

A fourth area of controversy centers on how best to settle large-scale civil conflicts. Should the international community intervene for humanitarian reasons? Should peace and reconciliation committees or similar groups be set up to establish the “truth”? Should negotiations be encouraged between opposing groups by promising amnesty to those accused of war crimes? Or would justice be served better by trying to arrest and try them in the International Criminal Court? How far do the obligations of the “right to protect” extend? Who should take responsibility for any coercive intervention?

Still another area of concern involves apologies and reparations for previous human rights injustices. Earlier violence against large numbers of people of other nationalities can — and does — sour relations between and among governments and their populations. Hence, this whole area is fraught with political difficulties, irrespective of its importance for human rights generally.

Truth commissions and truth and reconciliation groups provide an additional dimension, showing the evolution and growth of human rights. They investigate previous abuses. Their establishment suggests that previous “human wrongs” cannot be hidden forever.

Serious economic issues undercut how much — and indeed whether — individuals can enjoy full human rights. If human rights “begin with breakfast,” persons must have reasonable chances for employment and schooling. They must be able to break out of the trap of poverty and avoid the debilitating impact of malnutrition and endemic disease. The UDHR speaks about these concerns in general terms. However, serious problems remain in light of economic inequalities within and between nations. Wasteful or corrupt practices by government officials reduce what is available for other needs.

Finally, and in many ways most significant, the UDHR cannot be enforced by “traditional” means of coercion. The U.N. has no armed forces of its own, but must obtain parts of other states’ militaries for help. The U.N. agencies directly concerned with human rights, such as the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, receive little funding.

Looking back to 1948, however, progress has been remarkable. A visionary document has become a living reality. The UDHR should be celebrated for its firm foundation and flexible structure.

Global Citizenship Curriculum Project - Georgetown University

Course Module
Global Dialogues

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted by the UN General Assembly, December 1, 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

External Link

United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, addressed the Lehman community in recorded remarks commemorating the 75 th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). As the Ambassador notes, Lehman College has a special relationship to the UDHR. Lehman’s campus hosted several foundational meetings of the United Nations in 1946. In addition, Eleanor Roosevelt and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights began work on the Declaration of Human Rights on campus .

Lehman’s Center for Human Rights and Peace Studies and faculty in the Library and History departments invited the Ambassador to address the Lehman Community because of her distinguished diplomatic career and longstanding commitment to inclusion, health equity, and the rights of women, children, and marginalized communities.

“As a first-generation college graduate and role model for minority women working in diplomacy, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield represents our students’ best aspirations,” said Associate Professor Michael Buckley , Director of Lehman’s Center for Human Rights and Peace Studies.

Nearly sixty percent of Lehman students are first-generation college students, and nearly seventy percent are female. Lehman ranks No. 1 on Degree Choices’ list of best Hispanic-Serving Institutions and No. 4 on U.S. News & World Report’s list of colleges with the highest mobility rate in the nation. In the tradition of Herbert H. Lehman, our distinguished namesake, the College has consistently celebrated its connection to the United Nations and its core values.

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs

How Big Tech and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Military-Industrial Complex

America’s military-industrial complex has been rapidly expanding from the Capital Beltway to Silicon Valley. Although much of the Pentagon’s budget is spent on conventional weapons systems, the Defense Department has increasingly sought to adopt AI-enabled systems. Big tech companies, venture capital, and private equity firms benefit from multi-billion dollar Defense contracts, and smaller defense tech startups that “move fast and break things” also receive increased Defense funding. This report illustrates how a growing portion of the Defense Department’s spending is going to large, well-known tech firms, including some of the most highly valued corporations in the world.

Given the often-classified nature of large defense and intelligence contracts, a lack of transparency makes it difficult to discern the true amount of U.S. spending diverted to Big Tech. Yet, research reveals that the amount is substantial, and growing. According to the nonprofit research organization Tech Inquiry , three of the world’s biggest tech corporations were awarded approximately $28 billion from 2018 to 2022, including Microsoft ($13.5 billion), Amazon ($10.2 billion), and Alphabet, which is Google’s parent company ($4.3 billion). This paper found that the top five contracts to major tech firms between 2019 and 2022 had contract ceilings totaling at least $53 billion combined.

From 2021 through 2023, venture capital firms reportedly pumped nearly $100 billion into defense tech startup companies — an amount 40 percent higher than the previous seven years combined. This report examines how Silicon Valley startups, big tech, and venture capital who benefit from classified Defense contracts will create costly, high-tech defense products that are ineffective, unpredictable, and unsafe – all on the American taxpayer’s dime.

READ FULL PAPER >

Executive Summary >

IMAGES

Review of Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Free Essay Example
Write an essay on Human Rights
A Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Pictures, Photos, and Images
Universal declaration of human rights essay
What Is Human Rights Essay
Human Rights Essay

VIDEO

10 lines essay on human rights day in English| Human rights day essay| Human rights| #humanrights
Are Human Rights Universal?
The Declaration in daily life
मानव अधिकार पर निबंध
Imagine a World Where Human Rights are a Reality for Everyone
Essay on Human Rights || Human rights essay in english || essay on Human rights day

COMMENTS

Are Human Rights Universal?
Questioning whether human rights are universal is a philosophical debate that depends on fundamental interpretations of what is right and, indeed, to what extent existing rights are accepted and enjoyed by all. The debate becomes even more complex, however, when examining the variant translations of values that emerge from these philosophies ...
Are Human Rights Really 'Universal, Inalienable, and Indivisible'?
Human Rights as Universal. Universal human rights theory holds that human rights apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being human. The most obvious challenge to the universality factor comes from 'cultural relativism', which maintains that universal human rights are neo-imperialistic and culturally hegemonic. While this perspective ...
Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500
Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights. Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and ...
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
the concept of human rights, this essay will examine the tensions between human rights and state sovereignty, the challenges to the universality of human rights, the enumeration of rights recognized by the international community, and the means available to translate the high aspirations of human rights into practice. II.
Are Human Rights Universal?
On 10 December 2008, the United Nations led worldwide celebrations to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Six decades ago, the international ...
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
the concept of human rights, this essay will examine the tensions between human rights and state sovereignty, the challenges to the universality of human rights, the enumeration of rights recognized by the international community, and the means available to translate the high aspirations of human rights into practice. II.
Introductory essay: the drafting and significance of the Universal
Canadian legal academic John Peters Humphrey (1905-95) served as Director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights from 1946 to 1968. On several occasions, Humphrey wrote about the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its legal significance, most notably in his memoir: Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure, Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers ...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 75: Our Shared Values and
8 December 2023. O n 10 December 1948, a fledgling United Nations took a momentous step. In adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it laid down a promise of a world to be rebuilt ...
Are Human Rights Universal?
If there is no universal culture, there can be no universal human rights. In fact, some philosophers have ob- jected that the concept of human rights is founded on an anthropocentric, that is, a hu- man-centered, view of the world, predicated upon an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to.
What are human rights?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turns 75 on 10 December 2023, continues to be the foundation of all international human rights law.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Essay
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be analyzed within the context of the political, cultural, and religious situation, emerging in the middle of the twentieth century. As it is widely known, this act was adopted in 1948. According to this document, every person (or it would be better to say human beings) must be entitled to ...
Why Human Rights Are Universal
In 1948, 50 member states of the UN came together to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its 30 articles, it lays out the rights all humans deserve, regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender or any other status. For these rights to apply to you, all you had to be was human.
The global politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity
Human dignity, in this essay, embraces all types of human rights claims, ranging from political rights to socio-economic rights, among many others. The essay proposes a three-pronged reform of international human rights: (1) a shift from Western human rights to the more inclusive and pluralist notion of human dignity; (2) the promotion of ...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Modern History of
Beginning with the phrase "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims its purpo. Skip to main content. Download This Paper. ... and ﬁnally its achieved compromise and ultimate unanimous adoption. Then, the essay examines ways in which the UDHR has evolved ...
The Relative Universality of Human Rights
Human rights as an international political project are closely tied to claims of universality. Attacks on the universality of human rights, however, are also widespread. And some versions of universalism are indeed theoretically indefensible, politically pernicious, or both. This essay explores the senses in which human rights can (and cannot) be said to be universal, the senses in which they ...
The Universality of Human Rights
Introduction. "Human rights are "universal" rights in the sense that they are held "universally" by all human beings" (Donnelly 2007, p.4). Human rights are also said to be universal because most cultures and societies have upheld the concept of human rights throughout their history (Donnelly 2007). Therefore, the concept of human ...
The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)
In particular, Biseth (2008) stands for equality and universality of human right with regard to linguistic right, which should be perceived as something integral and inherent to a human. In general all the above-presented scholars agree with the necessity to perceive linguistic right as something independent from politics and law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?
Claude Welch, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, talks about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations General Assembly nearly 70 years ago. An internationally renowned expert in human rights, Welch wrote an essay on the topic for the U.S. State Department that was published in French ...
Are Human Rights Truly Universal
As we have seen in this essay, human rights are not truly universal. This is so because of several aspects such as the controversial birth of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; the cultural relativist argument; the theory of the imposition of human rights as a political and economic tool of the West; and finally the realist point of ...
Are Human Rights 'Universal'?
Human rights use to be a domestic issue championed by its proponents with each state separately, however, this has grown drastically and relatively quickly into a movement that asserts that these human rights are universal and all human beings are born with them. However this essay will argue that human rights are not universal due to their ...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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 ...
U.S. Ambassador To U.N. Recognizes Lehman's Human Rights Legacy
Lehman's Center for Human Rights and Peace Studies and faculty in the Library and History departments invited the Ambassador to address the Lehman Community because of her distinguished diplomatic career and longstanding commitment to inclusion, health equity, and the rights of women, children, and marginalized communities. "As a first-generation college graduate and role model for ...
Essay
Antisemitism and calls for genocide have no place at a university. My priority has been the safety and security of our community, but that leaves plenty of room for robust disagreement and debate.
How Big Tech and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Military
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Are Human Rights Universal?

Further Reading on E-International Relations

Please Consider Donating

September 14th, 2016

About the author

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Related Posts

Rights, exceptions, and the spirit of human rights

‘In conversation with Amartya Sen’ at the LSE

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

This Blog Includes:

What are Human Rights

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 75: Our Shared Values and Path to Solutions

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

World Down Syndrome Day: A Chance to End the Stereotypes

Population and Climate Change: Decent Living for All without Compromising Climate Mitigation

Documents and publications

Libraries and Archives

News and media

The UN at Work

Why Human Rights Are Universal

Do “human rights” ignore cultural differences?

Response to criticisms

What does change look like?

You may also like

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

The Universality of Human Rights

Legal Enforcement of Universal Human Rights

Disagreements on the Universality of Human Rights

Examples of Situations Where Universality of Human Rights Was Applied

Conclusions

The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?

Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) matter?

How did the UDHR come into being?

What does the UDHR say?

What are some of the results of the UDHR?

What steps lie ahead?

Global Citizenship Curriculum Project - Georgetown University

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

How Big Tech and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Military-Industrial Complex

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS