Está en la página 1de 7

HUMAN RIGHTS

I.

Definition. Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

II.

Classification A. According to Source 1. Natural Right 2. Constitutional Right 3. Statutory Right B. According to Aspects of life 1. Civil 2. Political 3. Economic 4. Social 5. Cultural C. According to Recipient 1. Individual 2. Collective D. According to Historical Development 1. First Generation Right (Civil & Political) 2. Second Generation Right (Economic, Social, & Cultural) 3. Third Generation Right (IPs) E. Derogable and non-derogable rights 1. Derogable 2. Non-derogable Characteristics A. Inherent Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority. B. Fundamental - Human Rights are fundamental rights because without them, the life and dignity of man will be meaningless. C. Inalienable - Human Rights are inalienable because: They cannot be rightfully taken away from a free individual. They cannot be given away or be forfeited. D. Imprescriptible - Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if man fails to use or assert them, even by a long passage of time. E. Indivisible - Human Rights are not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even when other rights have already been enjoyed. F. Universal - Human Rights are universal in application and they apply irrespective of ones origin, status, or condition or place where one lives. Human rights are enforceable without national border. G. Interdependent - Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the other. Theories A. Natural Law Social Contract We surrender some of our rights for the common good B. Positivist Theory Rights emanate from the State; If its not in the law, it is not a right. First Generation Rights, Second and Third A. 1st generation: Right to life Right to liberty Right to property and security of person Right to protection and due process Freedom from slavery, torture and degrading punishment Right to fair trial Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty Right against ex post facto law Rights of privacy of person and correspondents Right to travel Right of Expression Freedom of Religion Freedom of Nationality Freedom of Suffrage and to be elected as public officer Right to marry and form a family B. 2nd generation

III.

IV.

V.

C.

Work Fair conditions of employment Join and form a union Social security Adequate standard of living Shelter, food, and clothing Education Culture Protection of Family Health 3rd generation Healthy environment Development Indigenous People

VI.

International Law -body of principles that govern states A. Sources: 1. Treaties/Conventions 2. Customary International Law (Recognized principle among countries thru time) 3. General Principles of Law recognized by civilized nations 4. Statute of the International Court Of Justice (ICJ)

VII.

IHRL vs IHL(INTL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENEVA CONVENTION) IHRL- field of intl rules wherein citizens can claim or demand from our government IHL - simply the law of war. It seeks to regulate the means and methods of war. It protects those who are no longer/ not participating in the war (e.g. rights of the child, prisoner) United Declaration of Human Rights

VIII.

WORLDWIDE INFLUENCE OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS by Kim Gleeson From 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed, until 1976, when the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), entered into force the Universal Declaration stood alone as the international standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations . Today the Universal Declaration, along with the Convenants make up the International Bill of Rights. Nearly all international human rights instruments adopted by the United Nations bodies since 1948 elaborate principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ICCPR states in it's preamble. "in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights". The coming into force of the Covenants, by which State parties accepted legal as well as the moral obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, has not diminished the widespread influence of the Universal Declaration. The Universal Declaration has established many of the principles for a number of important international conventions and treaties-the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment; the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the General Assembly in 1981, clearly defines the nature and scope of the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief contained in the Universal Declaration and the International Convenants. The Universal Declaration has informed the constitutions of nation states and it's principles have been included or adopted by the Council of Europe, the Organization of African Unity, and the American Convention on Human Rights, at Costa Rica, in 1969. Judges of the International Court of Justice have invoked principles contained in the International Bill of Human Rights as a basis for their decisions. In 1968, at the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran, the Universal Declaration was once again declared "a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community". "The Universal Declaration has come to be regarded as an historic document articulating a common definition of human dignity and values. The Declaration is a yardstick by which to measure the degree of respect for, and compliance with, international human rights standards everywhere on earth". (Excerpts from the Centre for Human Rights, 1996 United Nations) At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, over 150 countries once again re-affirmed their commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressed in the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS [ Moira Rayner] This Covenant is one of the most important protections of all human rights, and it made headlines in 1998 when China adopted it. Countries who sign this Covenant absolutely guarantee to protect all the rights it covers. They belong to any individual within their

territory, whatever their status - including their sex, race, nationality, beliefs, social or economic standing - without any 'distinction' or discrimination. Signatories promise to provide an 'effective remedy' for their violation. Any one who believes they have beenwronged and has exhausted these domestic remedies, can take their complaint to theUN's Human Rights Committee. The Covenant protects fundamental rights, such as liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention. It guarantees humane treatment if people are detained according to law. It says that children who have been lawfully arrested or detained must not be jailed with adults: the reason is, that it is far too dangerous for the children. The Covenant says that every human being has an 'inherent right to life' - but the Covenant allows capital punishment in some circumstances. It prohibits torture - deliberate treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering - and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (which is different only in degree). It prohibits slavery or forced labour; guarantees freedom to move around and choose where to live; promises fair trials; and protects our right to 'privacy, family, home or correspondence' and 'unlawful attacks on a person's reputation or honour.' This could include vilification, such as falsely claiming that a political opponent is a sexual deviant, to discredit the person. We are entitled to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. We have the right to hold and express opinions. The Covenant prohibits incitement to war, or racial or religious hatred. It guarantees our right to peaceful assembly (with restrictions only for safety, health and others' freedoms'), and to freedom of association (including joining trade unions). Individuals have the right to marry whoever they so choose and the family's and children's rights must be especially protected. We must be allowed to take part in public affairs and to vote. Ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities have the right to preserve their culture. This Covenant is a charter for individual autonomy and self-determination. The rights it protects belong to every man, woman and child on earth, and may be asserted against any authority on earth. The ICCPR has two Optional Protocols. the first allows individuals (not just states) to lodge complaints with the UN about human rights violations. The second, which was adopted as late as 1989, is designed to eliminate the death penalty. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS [Moira Rayner] This Covenant is one of the cornerstones of human rights. It protects our economic and social rights. These are the rights that 'cost': governments have to spend money to provide standards of living, or meet cultural expectations. It is far easier to respect or acknowledge a right such as the right to vote, than it is to promise that 'no child will live in poverty.' These rights 'cost' because often social and economic rights depend on someone else giving up their share of resources, or access to power. Few do that willingly. The rights the Covenant deals with are those people need because they live in communities, associating with other people. They need to be read with the ICCPR and other rights. Anyway, someone who is starving or sick is hardly 'free'. The Covenant protects, among others, the right to an adequate standard of living, to the best possible physical and mental health, and the right to education (including compulsory, free primary education for children). It guarantees rights to social security, which means a minimum standard of living. The rights protected include the right to work, to 'just and favourable' conditions of work, and the right to join trade unions. Artists, scientists and writers are entitled to the benefit and control of the works they create. It guarantees the right to participate in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of social progress. Governments who sign this Covenant also promise to protect marriage, the family, and the wellbeing of pregnant women and those women who have recently given birth. These are some of the most important rights of all, yet there are no real performance measure for governments, and there is no mechanism for individuals to make complaints about the breach of these rights. The Covenant says that governments must act 'to the maximum of available resources', to achieve 'progressively' the full realisation of the Rights it protects. This gives governments - who have a discretion in how they spend their money - every reason to state that they just cannot afford them. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT [Moira Rayner] This Convention requires governments to prohibit, and prevent, 'torture'. Torture is the infliction of severe pain or suffering that is intended to get a confession, punish, intimidate or coerce anyone or that is inflicted for any discriminatory reasons, if it is carried out by or with the acquiescence of a public official. It can include being forced to watch someone else being hurt, to put pressure on the observer. Oddly, the Convention does not cover pain or suffering 'arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.' The only sensible interpretation of this proviso is that such sanctions would not be 'lawful' if their purpose was wrongful - punishment, intimidation, getting a confession or any one of the prohibited reasons. Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is not defined. It means marginally less 'severe' conduct of the same nature. It may include what some adults call 'corporal punishment' of children, at least if the child is hit with an object. In September 1998 the European Court of Justice said that it was 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment', under the European Human Rights Convention, for a stepfather to use a stick or a cane to beat a young boy. The Convention does not excuse torture under any circumstances whatever, whether there is a war or emergency on, or even if the torturer is merely 'obeying orders' from a superior officer. Countries who sign the Convention are obliged to arrest, detain and prosecute offenders; train their law enforcement and military personnel about the prohibition against torture, and review interrogation rules and practices. The treaty sets up a Committee Against Torture and people may raise complaints about cruel treatment to that committee at any time.

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD [Moira Rayner] This Convention has been signed by more countries than any other human rights treaty. Unfortunately, there is no provision for individuals to make a complaint if the rights it addresses are violated. Children are the least able to claim the rights this Convention protects. The Convention requires the government protect the human rights of children - anyone under the age of 18 - and to recognise that children have precisely the same human rights as adults. Children also have special, protective rights, 'before as well as after birth'. This seems to require, at least, that governments make sure that pregnant mothers have good ante-natal care. Children are also entitled to special protections and safeguards, because others have to protect their rights for them. Children's 'best interests' must be the first consideration in all decision-making for children: in other words, adults have to put their interests before their own preferences. The Convention recognises that parents should raise their own children and are their best protectors, because children's 'best interests' would, naturally, be their first consideration. The Convention asserts that a child has the right to be brought up in a family environment of love and understanding, and that the State must support parents in that role. A key provision is the child's right to parental guidance and direction, consistent with their developing maturity. Children may not be taken from their parents against their will, unless their best interests demand it, and then only after a fair hearing. They must not be discriminated against because of their parents' status or beliefs. A key right of the child is the right to participate in decision-making and in community life - they must, in other words, be taken seriously, and not treated as non-people, or lesser people, because of their age, vulnerability and dependency. Another is the right to play, as a special developmental need. Their rights include the full range of civil and political rights as are covered by the ICCPR, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and the right to be heard in decision-making affecting them; privacy, and freedom from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. They are entitled to the same economic, social and cultural rights as adults. They are entitled to special protection if they are deprived of the family environment in which, the Preamble makes clear, they are entitled to be brought up in an atmosphere of love and understanding, so that they may assume full adult responsibilities in due course. Essentially, this Convention reminds governments of the full humanity of all children, their equality, in moral terms as human beings, with adults; but their vulnerabilities too, and the special duties all owe to protect their rights. It simply states that adults must take children seriously, and they have to put their desires and interests second to their duty to ensure that all children achieve their full potential. CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN [Moira Rayer] The Convention obliges governments to prohibit discrimination against women on the one hand, and ensure their equality on the other, equality being one of the Convention's goals. There is not, at present, any procedure for complaints under this Convention, though it is under active consideration. The Convention prohibits any 'distinction, exclusion or restriction' based on sex, or marital status, which is either intended to, or has the effect of, impairing women's fundamental rights and freedoms, in any field. This covers unintentional (or indirect) discrimination, as well as deliberate acts that disadvantage women, and it affects the protection of rights in private (or family) life as well as public life. This Convention has a wider reach, therefore, than the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention obliges nations to pass laws to ensure the equality of women, and allows them to create 'temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women' - affirmative action, or positive discrimination, in other words, until equality is actually achieved. There is a positive duty to modify cultural and social practices that create stereotypes or reflect prejudices about female inferiority because of their sex. The Convention requires women's equality in economic and social life, and requires governments to take steps to address the special difficulties of rural women. They must take steps to eliminate trafficking in women and the exploitation of women's prostitution (it does not require the eradication of prostitution itself). States must also eliminate political discrimination (such as the right to vote and hold public office); discrimination in access to and the type or choice of education; ensure women's equality in choices of work, wages and conditions, and to social security, and prohibit dismissal because women have married, become pregnant or had children (maternity leave with pay and child care should be provided). Governments have to take special measures to provide care for women during pregnancy - they may provide special health services for women as well as ensuring their equal access to health care. Women must also have equality with men before the law, which includes the right to own property and enter into their own contracts. The Convention also requires equality in relation to marriage and the family, such as equal rights to choose their husband as the husband has to choose a wife; the right to choose when to bear, and how many, children, their rights and duties towards children, and property. This important Convention does not excuse discrimination against women for any reason, including cultural, traditional or religious grounds. Women's rights are human rights. CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION [Moira Rayer] This prohibits any 'distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life'. The Convention covers 'preferences' as well as discrimination, so it addresses prejudices and assumptions explicitly. It requires governments to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination and guarantee equality before the law with respect to every human right, including those covered by other human rights treaties, such as the ICCPR. It lists a wide range of civil, political, economic social and cultural rights, and also explicitly covers the right of access to public places and services (such as access to public transport and buildings), but the prohibition on racial discrimination covers any right covered by any treaty, whether mentioned in the Convention or not.

The Convention covers all kinds of discriminatory or prejudicial acts, but only in public life. In other words, racism in your own kitchen is not covered by it. This is quite different from CEDAW, which explicitly covers discrimination against women in the home as well. This is because women's disadvantaged status is precisely because of the importance of the home, and their duties in it, which seem 'private' but carry over into their public participation. It is not entirely clear whether this Convention also covers 'indirect' race discrimination - where there is no intention to act in a prejudicial or unfair way, but where it becomes obvious that the 'equal' law, or policy, or service, or circumstance in fact results in disadvantage because of a person's race. An example of indirect race discrimination comes from a key US decision. A company had a policy that it would only hire workers who had graduated from High School. The majority of the people in the neighbourhood were African Americans. The majority of those people did not graduate from High School, for a range of reasons related to their disadvantage social and economic status, and their historical position as descendants of former slaves. The 'indirect' effect was that they could never meet the condition of getting a job with the company, because of a characteristic of their race. Therefore, the policy was indirectly discriminatory. 'Race' includes skin colour, nationality, ethnicity and so forth, but not citizenship nor, in general terms, immigration laws. The Convention provides three exceptions to the duty to prohibit race discrimination:

i. ii. iii.

A country can decide who are to be its citizens, and non-citizens; A government can make laws with respect to nationality, citizenship and naturalisation (provided that they do notdiscriminate against any particular nationality); and Affirmative action (positive discrimination) is allowed so long as it is discontinued after it has achieved its objective, which must be an intention to achieve the advancement of racial minorities, and which does not lead to separate rights (such as the former South African policies of apartheid). The Convention also requires governments to make laws to prohibit and prevent racial vilification or incitement to racial hatred. Article 14 of the Convention gives anyone who feels that their rights have been violated under this Convention the right to complain, against the government not individuals, to theUN's' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE [Moira Rayner] This court can hear cases referred to it, and all matters provided for in the United Nations Charter, or treaties or conventions in force. Many human rights treaties provide that the Court can hear a matter if it is referred to the court by one of the parties to the dispute- the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, for example. The Statues of the court is an integral part of the UN's Charter, which provides that all members of the UN are parties to the Statute. It does not have the power to enforce its determinations - no 'human rights' enforcement agency does - though there is a provision that a government may, at any time, declare that they recognise the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, without any special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the individual. It does not receive petitions or complaints from individuals, and it does not hear claims against people who are said to have breached international law. But it is one mechanism for addressing breaches by governments of their international contractual obligations to comply with treaties. It has been less used than the European Court of Justice which has, on several occasions, embarrassed nations who have failed to comply with the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT [Tim McCormack & Helen Durham] It is said that "All Roads Lead to Rome" but in the case of the International Criminal Court it took much longer to get to Rome than it ought to have done. In the early hours of 18 July 1998, the international community experienced an historic moment when the Diplomatic Conference concluded, after five exhausting weeks, with the adoption of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. The adoption of the Statute represented the culmination of more than 100 years of previously unsuccessful effort to establish such an institution. Now, finally, at the close of the Twentieth Century, the overwhelming majority of independent sovereign nation States had demonstrated a commitment to terminating the reign of impunity for the commission of gross atrocities in the world. Over 170 States participated at the Rome Conference as well as a number of Non-Governmental Organisations and International Organisations. The statute itself is a compromise reflecting the diverse interests, opinions and standards through-out the world for dealing with the prosecution of those who plan or commit actions that cause profound and horrific human suffering. The new Court, once established, will sit in The Hague and will exercise prospective jurisdiction over alleged acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression (although jurisdiction over aggression will be dependent upon the successful negotiation of an appropriate definition of the crime of aggression for inclusion in the Court's Statute). The so-called principle of "complementarity" means that the International Criminal Court will not override national court processes and will only be able to exercise jurisdiction in situations where States are "unwilling or genuinely unable" to deal with particular cases. It is important to note, however, that complementarity will not prevent the Court from dealing with a matter referred to it by the United Nations Security Council which already exercises constitutional authority, regardless of State consent, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It was also announced that the Court would have jurisdiction over war crimes committed in internal as well as international armed conflict. As the vast majority of modern armed conflicts are to be found within countries rather than between countries, for the Court to be effective and relevant it is essential that it reflects current realities. The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court needs 60 ratifications before it enters into force and the Court is established. That is likely to take some time and the Court will probably not become operational until early in the new millenium. The Rome Statute is not a perfect instrument - like all multilateral treaty texts it includes a number of weaknesses which reflect necessary political compromises to reach broad international agreement. The fact that the Statute provides for a stronger, more effective Court than many anticipated and still received 120 positive votes, with only 7 votes against, is testament to the prevailing mood of the international community to convict and punish those responsible for the worst atrocities. The new Court

has the potential to be the most significant multilateral institution since the creation of the United Nations itself in 1945. THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS by Peter Bailey OBE AM In less than half a century, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the UDHR) has come to be regarded as possibly the single most important document created in the twentieth century and as the accepted world standard for human rights. The UDHR draws lifepreserving messages from the past, and is seen as an essential foundation for building a world in which all human beings can, in the centuries to come, look forward to living in dignity and peace. A CRITICAL HISTORICAL MOMENT As the second World War began to close, the world climate was ready for a great leap forward in the recognition and observance of human rights. When representatives of the four major powers met in 1944 at Dumbarton Oaks, a stately mansion in Georgetown, Washington DC, two world wars had been fought in less than 30 years, and cruelty almost beyond belief had been inflicted on members of the Jewish race in Europe and on prisoners of war in detention in Asia and Europe. An atomic bomb was about to be set off that would show what enormous destructive power humankind could unleash in targeting nations as well as individuals, often simply because they were members of a particular race or religion. The leaders felt there must be a better way for the nations and peoples of the world to live together and sort out their problems and laid plans for establishing what was to become the United Nations. In late 1945, leaders of the world's nations met in San Francisco to form the United Nations. Inspired by the great South African preapartheid leader Field-Marshall Smuts, they included in the preamble to the Charter of the UN, an important reference to human rights. (A preamble is an important introductory section of a legal document, and explains the background to it rather than being part of its operative provisions.) The relevant part of the preamble said: "We the peoples of the United Nations [are] 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". This reference to human rights, was followed up by six references throughout the UN Charter's operative provisions to human rights and fundamental freedoms. In addition, largely as a result of pressure brought to bear on the political leaders by some 42 United States nongovernment organisations, Article 68 was included. It required the Economic and Social Council to set up commissions in the human rights and economic and social fields. The outcome was the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights. Thus the Commission is one of the very few bodies to draw its authority directly from the Charter of the United Nations. PRODUCING THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS In April 1946, Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of President Franklin Roosevelt of the United States was appointed to chair an interim group of 9 members. By June the interim body had suggested that the new Commission should make its first task the development as soon as possible of an international bill of human rights. Later in the year, the new Commission of Human Rights of 18 members, again chaired by Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, was appointed, and included China's P.C.Chang, FrenchmenRene Cassin and Dr Charles Malik of Lebanon. The Commission met for the first time in January 1947 and considered several critical issues. Its decisions have greatly influenced the human rights development since then, including action at national level. It concluded that it should work to develop first a declaration rather than a treaty. (An international declaration is a statement of importance, and has high moral and often political significance, and is more than a recommendation, but it is less than a treaty, which is binding in international law.) Perhaps most important of all, it decided that the declaration should contain both civil and political and also economic and social rights. The Commission's view was that the declaration should be a relatively short, inspirational and energising document usable by common people. It should be the foundation and central document for the remainder of an international bill of human rights. It thus avoided the more difficult problems that had to be addressed when the binding treaty came up for consideration - just what role the state should have in enforcing the rights in its territory, and whether the mode of enforcing civil and political rights should be different from that for economic and social rights. It was fortunate that the Commission made the decision to separate the formally legally binding covenant from the initial declaration. Although the declaration was endorsed in December 1948, the two covenants (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) that emerged to define the obligations of each state were not ready for ratification (formal approval by the governments of the world) until 1966, some 18 years later. AN INSPIRATIONAL DOCUMENT The Commission then turned to formulating the declaration. It decided to name it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The very name emphasises the UDHR was to set a standard of rights for all people everywhere - whether male or female, black or white, communist or capitalist, victor or vanquished, rich or poor, for members of a majority or a minority in the community. In the words of the first preamble to the UDHR, it was to reflect "recognition of the inherent dignity and .. equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family "... and through that recognition provide "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". Article 1 reflects the inspirational nature of the project. It was included only after much controversy about whether it was just stating the obvious, or whether it should be included in the preamble rather than the main text. It proclaims in ringing terms that "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". The reason for including it in the main text is to state firmly the basis of all human rights, the rationality of human persons and their obligation to deal fairly with everyone else, regardless of race, sex, wealth and so on. Article 7 follows up this theme by saying that all are to

be equal before the law and have a right to protection against any form of discrimination. Articles 3 and 27 are probably the core of the substantive provisions in the Declaration. They give every human being the rights to life, to liberty, to security of person (Art 3) and to an adequate standard of living (Art 27). The first three are core civil and political rights, the last an economic and social right. The right to an adequate standard of living is interesting in that it specifies as part of it the right to health and well-being not only of a person but of his or her family, and also the right to necessary food, clothing, housing and medical care, and the right to social security (also covered in Art 22). Overarching all the particular rights are Articles 28 and 29. (There are 30 Articles in the Declaration, of which 17 could be regarded as relating to civil and political rights and 8 to economic and social rights). Articles 28 and 29 have not received much discussion, and have not been given legally binding force in the two Covenants. But they are explosive in their significance. Article 28 emphasises the responsibility of the whole international community for seeking and putting into place arrangements of both a civil and political and an economic and social kind that allow for the full realisation of human rights. It would be easy to ask questions about current arrangements or plans that hardly seem to do this, such as those relating to trade and investment arrangements and perhaps some of those planning to eradicate international crimes such as genocide and war crimes. Article 30 is also of high importance, because it underlines the responsibility all people have to their community. Notice that the Article does not talk about the state. There is danger in claiming, as so many dictators and even democratic leaders have claimed, that people owe duties of an inalienable kind to the state. They do not. But they do have obligations to their fellow human beings, as Article 1 also emphasises. Perhaps, looking back at the UDHR after half a century, the only significant lack is in the area of the environment. It can however be implied from rights such as the right to life and to an adequate standard of living. Tribute should be played to three different groups. Firstly, to Eleanor Roosevelt and her advisers, mainly from the US Department of State. Somehow, she was able to maintain a generally harmonious atmosphere during virtually the whole of the long meeting phase. Second, to the many prominent people who provided drafts to the Committee for its consideration. These included noted international lawyer, Professor Hersch Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, and British author H G Wells. There was also a draft based on work done in preparation for an American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Finally, there was the enormous work done by the secretariat, led by Professor J P Humphrey, that brought all this material together for the Commission to consider. When the Commission finally took its vote on 18 June 1948, twelve of its fifteen members voted in favour. The Soviet Union, Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Yugoslavia (the Soviet bloc technically had only two members) abstained. The draft then went to the Economic and Social Council, which did not change the text but arranged for it to go to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, where it struck difficulties. It was fortunate that the Committee's chairman at the time was Charles Malik. After no less than 81 long meetings, at which at least 168 amending resolutions were considered, the Committee, on 6 December 1948, at last reached agreement - just in time to be taken by the General Assembly before it concluded its meeting for the year. On the evening of 10 December 1948, the General Assembly endorsed the text of the UDHR without amendment, only two days before it rose until the next year. There were no dissenting votes, but the six communist countries then members of the UN, and also Saudi Arabia and South Africa, abstained. The Assembly, in an rare gesture of appreciation, gave Mrs Roosevelt a standing ovation. THE GROWING STATURE OF THE UDHR So, just ahead of the advent of the Cold War and the consequent slowing down of many constructive developments, the Universal Declaration managed to emerge successfully from the complex and politically hazardous processes of the United Nations to become its human rights flagship. The Declaration had not managed at that time to achieve full recognition from the communist and certain middle eastern countries, but at least they had not voted against it. Notwithstanding the initial difficulties and resistance, the Declaration has probably achieved a stature in the world that even the most optimistic of its founders in 1948 would not have expected. First, it has become accepted (often rather reluctantly, it is true) as an influential statement of standards, even by countries that are doubtful about the wholehuman rights enterprise. When countries such as Burma, Argentina, China and the former Yugoslavia feel bound to defend themselves when they are accused of being in breach of the UDHR, then it can be said to have achieved an important political and moral status. Equally important, the UDHR has become almost an extension of the UN Charter. Although, the Charter has only a few articles that refer to human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is now usual to refer to the UDHR as setting out the content of those rights and freedoms. So it has become a part of the fabric of the UN itself, and is often referred to in resolutions of the UN General Assembly, and in its debates, for example in relation to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960. At the human rights conference in Teheran in 1978, to mark the 30th anniversary of the UDHR, the representatives of 84 nations unanimously declared that the UDHR states a common understanding of the inalienable rights of all people and constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community. Third, most if not all the provisions of the UDHR have almost certainly become a part of international customary law. The view is steadily growing among international lawyers that practice (always an important source of international law) includes not only acts such as observing rules about navigation at sea but also acts such as voting for resolutions at United Nations and other international gatherings. The very large and increasing number of ratifications of the two human rights Covenants, and the fact that the rights stated in the UDHR are commonly recognised as well founded in moral and good practice terms, means that there are now virtually unchallengeable grounds for asserting that the UDHR rights have become part of international customary law. That means that, unlike treaties, which only bind a country once it has accepted the treaty obligations, all countries in the world are bound, whatever their particular view may be. A country cannot repudiate international customary law, as it can a treaty obligation. For these three reasons, those who boldly moved to form and then approve the provisions of the UDHR have left an abiding legacy for humankind that will rank with the great religious contributions of past centuries. The UDHR is an increasingly powerful instrument for the achievement of human dignity and peace for all.