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

The UDHR is among the most important documents of the 20 th 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?
Every country in the world had been touched directly or indirectly by World War II. 70 million
people perished. 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
2 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 8 states abstained.
What does the UDHR say?
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.
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?
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.
 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?
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 (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 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.