The United Nations’ Universal Declaration
of Human Rights is “one of the
highest expressions of the human conscience
in our time,” commented Pope
John Paul II in 1995.
This document (www.unhchr.ch/udhr), adopted by the U.N. General
Assembly 60 years ago this month, was
a major postwar accomplishment. It
was crafted and approved in the narrow
window of opportunity while the horrors
of the Holocaust extermination
of Jews and Gypsies were still fresh in
people’s minds and just before the
Berlin Airlift ushered in the Cold War.
It is a testament to the vision and energy
of Eleanor Roosevelt, the first chair
of the U.N.’s Commission on Human
Rights, which drafted the Declaration.
U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See
Mary Ann Glendon wrote A World
Made New, the definitive work about
Mrs. Roosevelt and the Declaration of
Human Rights.
According to Glendon, the Declaration
“serves today as the principal common
reference point for cross-cultural
discussion of how we are to order the
human future in an increasingly interdependent
world” (Catholic News Service,
May 5, 2008).
SPONSORED LINKS
 Articulate Your Ideals
Mrs. Roosevelt knew very well what
the Declaration was and wasn’t: “It is
not a treaty,” she admitted in 1948. “It
is not an international agreement. It is
not and does not purport to be a statement
of law or legal obligation. It is a
Declaration of basic principles of human
rights and freedoms.”
Stating our ideals is always good—even if we don’t live up to them. We
haven’t jettisoned the Ten Commandments,
no matter how many we fail to
keep.
While it is not a binding document
for any of the U.N. members, the Declaration
is an important tool in applying
diplomatic and moral pressure on
governments to observe the Declaration’s
30 articles.
Some 60 treaties since have elaborated
on various aspects of the Declaration,
according to Bert B. Lockwood, a University
of Cincinnati law professor now
in his 27th year of editing Human Rights
Quarterly, published by Johns Hopkins
University Press (www.press.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly).
Of these subsequent treaties, the
United States has ratified only five of
them. Because international covenants
are considered treaties, they must be
approved by the U.S. Senate for our
country to be bound by them.
Even on those we’ve ratified, we’ve
attached reservations. Sometimes, that’s
been for a good reason. For instance,
the 1966 Civil and Political Rights
Covenant (ratified by the U.S. in 1992)
requires governments to agree to suppress
war propaganda and incitement
to racial discrimination. Definitely, this
is something the United States can
endorse, but our First Amendment
allows even hateful words in our free
speech.
And we never agreed to the second
protocol to this covenant, because that
requires abolishing the death penalty.
Moreover, the main document contains
a right to universal health care, on
which this country’s commitment
wavers.
Our 1988 ratification of the 1948
treaty against genocide included a reservation
that the World Court has no
jurisdiction in our country.
We have ratified the convention
against torture and the one against
racial discrimination, but we know we
are vulnerable on the racial issue.
The only other U.N. member that
hasn’t signed the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which would
outlaw child soldiers and child prostitution,
is Somalia, according to
Professor Lockwood.
We’ve never signed or ratified the
documents on the basic rights for
migrant workers or the handicapped.
It’s true that the United States is
working on most of these issues, independent
of international oversight, but
we value our national sovereignty so
highly we’re removing ourselves from
the international discussion.
The original Universal Declaration of
Human Rights became a moral touchstone
on which everything else is based.
“Sixty years into a legal revolution,”
says Professor Lockwood, “isn’t a particularly
long time historically. Human
rights is clearly an idea which has spread
and has made very significant strides.”
Yet if today you read the Preamble
setting forth the reasons why the Declaration
was deemed necessary in 1948,
you can see why it is still needed:
“Whereas disregard and contempt for
human rights have resulted in barbarous
acts, which have outraged the
conscience of mankind....” Just think of
recent genocides such as those in Cambodia,
Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Yes,
there’s a disconnect between the ideals
of the world community and the international
law’s real power to protect
people. So more—not less—needs to
be done.
When Pope Benedict XVI addressed
the United Nations last April, he
pointed out, “The promotion of human
rights remains the most effective strategy
for eliminating inequalities between
countries and social groups, and
for increasing security. Indeed, the victims
of hardship and despair, whose
human dignity is violated with impunity,
become easy prey to the call
of violence....”
Not only is it the moral thing to
do, but it is also in our self-interest to
promote the human rights of all God’s
people.—B.B.
|
