universal declaration of human rights short essay

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

• Secretary-General
• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved
• Israel-Gaza Crisis
• 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 cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 ( General Assembly resolution 217 A ) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages . The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles). 

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.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

• Text of the Declaration
• History of the Declaration
• Drafters of the Declaration
• The Foundation of International Human Rights Law
• Human Rights Law

2023: UDHR turns 75

What is the Declaration of Human Rights? Narrated by Morgan Freeman.

UN digital ambassador Elyx animates the UDHR

To mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR in December 2023, the United Nations has partnered once again with French digital artist YAK (Yacine Ait Kaci) – whose illustrated character Elyx is the first digital ambassador of the United Nations – on an animated version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UDHR Illustrated

Read the Illustrated edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UDHR in 80+ languages

Watch and listen to people around the world reading articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in more than 80 languages.

Women Who Shaped the Declaration

Women delegates from various countries played a key role in getting women’s rights included in the Declaration. Hansa Mehta of India (standing above Eleanor Roosevelt) is widely credited with changing the phrase "All men are born free and equal" to "All human beings are born free and equal" in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• General Assembly
• Security Council
• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• UN and Sustainability
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Ceasefire
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre
• Türkiye-Syria Earthquake Response (Donate)

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.

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

In this section.

• The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it
• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige
• Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.

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

FEATURING Kathryn Sikkink AND KenNETH Roth

43 minutes and 10 seconds.

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

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

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

Episode Notes:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph Ranalli: Ken, Kathryn, welcome to PolicyCast. 

Kenneth Roth: It's good to be here. 

Kathryn Sikkink: Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph Ranalli: Kind of aspirational? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Roth: Thank you for thinking of us. 

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

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

More from PolicyCast

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

9 Inspiration: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In this course, you will use as your guide an important historical document from the United Nations. It’s called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Before you look at the document itself, start by thinking about what people mean when they say human rights.

What are human rights?

The basic idea of human rights is that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are born, is entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms. That may sound simple enough, but it gets incredibly complicated as soon as anyone tries to put the idea into practice. What exactly are the basic human rights? Who gets to pick them? Who enforces them—and how? Benedetta Berti explores the subtleties of human rights in the video below.

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer these questions to check your understanding of the video.

How will you use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this course?

You will use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as your inspiration for all of your essays this term. Inside this document are many big ideas, from freedom of slavery to freedom of expression. As you study this document, you’ll find several different topics that you will write about in different ways.

• Definition Essay – You find a word or idea in the UDHR that you want to learn more about. You explain its meaning in different ways.
• Cause-and-Effect Essay – You choose an issue from the UDHR that you want to learn more about. You describe its cause and/or effect in detail.
• Discussion Essay – You choose another topic from the UDHR that you want to discuss. You present the pros and cons or other considerations that are important to understand the topic.

Throughout the term, you will also write short paragraphs and complete other exercises that use information from the UDHR. It’s a very rich document, and there will be many ideas for you to choose from.

What are the rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

There are 30 rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You can learn about them in three ways: simple English, the original English, and written and audio translations in many different languages.

What does the UDHR say in simple English?

• We Are All Born Free & Equal . We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.
• Don’t Discriminate . These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.
• The Right to Life . We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.
• No Slavery . Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.
• No Torture . Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.
• You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go . I am a person just like you!
• We’re All Equal Before the Law . The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.
• Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law . We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly.
• No Unfair Detainment . Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.
• The Right to Trial . If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do.
• We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty . Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.
• The Right to Privacy . Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason.
• Freedom to Move . We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish.
• The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live . If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.
• Right to a Nationality . We all have the right to belong to a country.
• Marriage and Family . Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated.
• The Right to Your Own Things . Everyone has the right to own things or share them. Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason.
• Freedom of Thought . We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.
• Freedom of Expression . We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.
• The Right to Public Assembly . We all have the right to meet our friends and to work together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we don’t want to.
• The Right to Democracy . We all have the right to take part in the government of our country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders.
• Social Security . We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.
• Workers’ Rights . Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union.
• The Right to Play . We all have the right to rest from work and to relax.
• Food and Shelter for All . We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children, people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for.
• The Right to Education . Education is a right. Our parents can choose what we learn.
• Copyright . Copyright is a special law that protects one’s own artistic creations and writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own way of life and to enjoy the good things that art, science and learning bring.
• A Fair and Free World . There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and freedoms in our own country and all over the world.
• Responsibility. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms.
• No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights .

What does the original document say?

Although the simple English version above makes it easy for you to get started, it’s also important for you to review the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights , especially after you choose a particular topic for your essay. The original text isn’t much longer, but it can give you more context or other helpful details.

How can you read the UDHR in your first language?

It can be useful for you to also read or hear the UDHR in your first language. In fact, the UDHR is the most translated document in the world! It is available to read in 538 different languages . You can also listen to people read it aloud in nearly 90 different languages .

INSTRUCTIONS: After you have read some of the information above, discuss the UDHR with your classmates. Answer these questions:

• What did you know about the UDHR before this class?
• What was new or surprising to learn about the UDHR?
• What interests you about the UDHR? What are you curious about?
• Compare/contrast the different formats of the same document. How are they the same? How are they different? Why are they different?

Choose your first topic

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) will be the inspiration for your writing this term. To choose your first topic, follow these steps:

1. Read the simple English version (above) again carefully. Then skim the original version (follow the link above). Finally, read or listen to the the UDHR in your first language, too, so that you understand it better (follow the link above).

2. Choose a specific word, concept or idea that interests you.

3. Look up the word, concept, or idea in a dictionary ( Macmillan American Dictionary and Cambridge English Learner’s Dictionary are two good, free online dictionaries, but you can use any dictionary you like; however, do not use only Google Translate). Write your answers to these questions:

• What is the word, concept, or idea?
• What is the name of dictionary that you used?
• What is the dictionary definition of your word, concept, or idea? (copy the exact words and put them in “quotation marks” to show that they came from an outside source of information)
• What is the definition of your word, concept, or idea in your own words? (paraphrase the dictionary definition in your own words)

4. Send all of these things to your instructor in an email. Here is an example:

Hello, teacher,

My name is Ordelia Halsey. I am in your Level 7 Writing class. Here is the word from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I want to use for my definition essay:

• Word: liberty
• Name of dictionary: Macmillan American Dictionary
• Dictionary definition: “the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people”
• My definition: I can do what I want without the government stopping me.

Please let me know if this is a good choice for my definition essay.

Ordelia Halsey

5. Check your email for a reply from your instructor. Your instructor will tell you if your choice is suitable for this assignment, or if you should choose another. Your instructor will also help to make sure you understand the word that you choose before you start writing your essay.

Coalescence Copyright © 2023 by Timothy Krause is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

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.

Also Read: List of Human Rights Courses

Also Read: MSc Human Rights

Also Read: 1-Minute Speech on Human Rights for Students

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.

Also Read: What are Human Rights?

Also Read: 7 Impactful Human Rights Movies Everyone Must Watch!

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. Protected by law , these rights are applicable everywhere and at any time. Basic human rights include the right to life, right to a fair trial, right to remedy by a competent tribunal, right to liberty and personal security, right to own property, right to education, right of peaceful assembly and association, right to marriage and family, right to nationality and freedom to change it, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from slavery, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of movement, right of opinion and information, right to adequate living standard and freedom from interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence.

Also Read: Law Courses

Check out this 500-word long essay on Human Rights.

Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights. Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our lives and develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.

Human rights can broadly be defined as the basic rights that people worldwide have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to health, education and an adequate standard of living. These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or believe. This basic property is what makes human rights’ universal’.

Human rights connect us all through a shared set of rights and responsibilities. People’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community. Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.

Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people can enjoy their rights. They must establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in which their rights are respected and protected. For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. Therefore, governments must provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. If the government fails to respect or protect their basic human rights, people can take it into account.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can help us create the kind of society we want to live in. There has been tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas in recent decades. This growth has had many positive results – knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.

Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels of society – in the family, the community, school, workplace, politics and international relations. Therefore, people everywhere must strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society. 

Also Read: Important Articles in Indian Constitution

Here is a human rights essay focused on India.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It has been rightly proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Created with certain unalienable rights….” Similarly, the Indian Constitution has ensured and enshrined Fundamental rights for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, colour, sex or nationality. These basic rights, commonly known as human rights, are recognised the world over as basic rights with which every individual is born.

In recognition of human rights, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made on the 10th of December, 1948. This declaration is the basic instrument of human rights. Even though this declaration has no legal bindings and authority, it forms the basis of all laws on human rights. The necessity of formulating laws to protect human rights is now being felt all over the world. According to social thinkers, the issue of human rights became very important after World War II concluded. It is important for social stability both at the national and international levels. Wherever there is a breach of human rights, there is conflict at one level or the other.

Given the increasing importance of the subject, it becomes necessary that educational institutions recognise the subject of human rights as an independent discipline. The course contents and curriculum of the discipline of human rights may vary according to the nature and circumstances of a particular institution. Still, generally, it should include the rights of a child, rights of minorities, rights of the needy and the disabled, right to live, convention on women, trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation etc.

Since the formation of the United Nations , the promotion and protection of human rights have been its main focus. The United Nations has created a wide range of mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations. The conventional mechanisms include treaties and organisations, U.N. special reporters, representatives and experts and working groups. Asian countries like China argue in favour of collective rights. According to Chinese thinkers, European countries lay stress upon individual rights and values while Asian countries esteem collective rights and obligations to the family and society as a whole.

With the freedom movement the world over after World War II, the end of colonisation also ended the policy of apartheid and thereby the most aggressive violation of human rights. With the spread of education, women are asserting their rights. Women’s movements play an important role in spreading the message of human rights. They are fighting for their rights and supporting the struggle for human rights of other weaker and deprived sections like bonded labour, child labour, landless labour, unemployed persons, Dalits and elderly people.

Unfortunately, violation of human rights continues in most parts of the world. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can still be seen in several parts of the world. Large sections of the world population are deprived of the necessities of life i.e. food, shelter and security of life. Right to minimum basic needs viz. Work, health care, education and shelter are denied to them. These deprivations amount to the negation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also Read: Human Rights Courses

Check out this detailed 1500-word essay on human rights.

The human right to live and exist, the right to equality, including equality before the law, non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, the right to practice any profession or occupation, the right against exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and trafficking in human beings, the right to freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion and the right to legal remedies for enforcement of the above are basic human rights. These rights and freedoms are the very foundations of democracy.

Obviously, in a democracy, the people enjoy the maximum number of freedoms and rights. Besides these are political rights, which include the right to contest an election and vote freely for a candidate of one’s choice. Human rights are a benchmark of a developed and civilised society. But rights cannot exist in a vacuum. They have their corresponding duties. Rights and duties are the two aspects of the same coin.

Liberty never means license. Rights presuppose the rule of law, where everyone in the society follows a code of conduct and behaviour for the good of all. It is the sense of duty and tolerance that gives meaning to rights. Rights have their basis in the ‘live and let live’ principle. For example, my right to speech and expression involves my duty to allow others to enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression. Rights and duties are inextricably interlinked and interdependent. A perfect balance is to be maintained between the two. Whenever there is an imbalance, there is chaos.

A sense of tolerance, propriety and adjustment is a must to enjoy rights and freedom. Human life sans basic freedom and rights is meaningless. Freedom is the most precious possession without which life would become intolerable, a mere abject and slavish existence. In this context, Milton’s famous and oft-quoted lines from his Paradise Lost come to mind: “To reign is worth ambition though in hell/Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

However, liberty cannot survive without its corresponding obligations and duties. An individual is a part of society in which he enjoys certain rights and freedom only because of the fulfilment of certain duties and obligations towards others. Thus, freedom is based on mutual respect’s rights. A fine balance must be maintained between the two, or there will be anarchy and bloodshed. Therefore, human rights can best be preserved and protected in a society steeped in morality, discipline and social order.

Violation of human rights is most common in totalitarian and despotic states. In the theocratic states, there is much persecution, and violation in the name of religion and the minorities suffer the most. Even in democracies, there is widespread violation and infringement of human rights and freedom. The women, children and the weaker sections of society are victims of these transgressions and violence.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights’ main concern is to protect and promote human rights and freedom in the world’s nations. In its various sessions held from time to time in Geneva, it adopts various measures to encourage worldwide observations of these basic human rights and freedom. It calls on its member states to furnish information regarding measures that comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever there is a complaint of a violation of these rights. In addition, it reviews human rights situations in various countries and initiates remedial measures when required.

The U.N. Commission was much concerned and dismayed at the apartheid being practised in South Africa till recently. The Secretary-General then declared, “The United Nations cannot tolerate apartheid. It is a legalised system of racial discrimination, violating the most basic human rights in South Africa. It contradicts the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. That is why over the last forty years, my predecessors and I have urged the Government of South Africa to dismantle it.”

Now, although apartheid is no longer practised in that country, other forms of apartheid are being blatantly practised worldwide. For example, sex apartheid is most rampant. Women are subject to abuse and exploitation. They are not treated equally and get less pay than their male counterparts for the same jobs. In employment, promotions, possession of property etc., they are most discriminated against. Similarly, the rights of children are not observed properly. They are forced to work hard in very dangerous situations, sexually assaulted and exploited, sold and bonded for labour.

The Commission found that religious persecution, torture, summary executions without judicial trials, intolerance, slavery-like practices, kidnapping, political disappearance, etc., are being practised even in the so-called advanced countries and societies. The continued acts of extreme violence, terrorism and extremism in various parts of the world like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Somalia, Algeria, Lebanon, Chile, China, and Myanmar, etc., by the governments, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and mafia outfits, etc., is a matter of grave concern for the entire human race.

Violation of freedom and rights by terrorist groups backed by states is one of the most difficult problems society faces. For example, Pakistan has been openly collaborating with various terrorist groups, indulging in extreme violence in India and other countries. In this regard the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva adopted a significant resolution, which was co-sponsored by India, focusing on gross violation of human rights perpetrated by state-backed terrorist groups.

The resolution expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and proposed that a U.N. Fund for victims of terrorism be established soon. The Indian delegation recalled that according to the Vienna Declaration, terrorism is nothing but the destruction of human rights. It shows total disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. The delegation further argued that terrorism cannot be treated as a mere crime because it is systematic and widespread in its killing of civilians.

Violation of human rights, whether by states, terrorists, separatist groups, armed fundamentalists or extremists, is condemnable. Regardless of the motivation, such acts should be condemned categorically in all forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever they are committed, as acts of aggression aimed at destroying human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. The Indian delegation also underlined concerns about the growing connection between terrorist groups and the consequent commission of serious crimes. These include rape, torture, arson, looting, murder, kidnappings, blasts, and extortion, etc.

Violation of human rights and freedom gives rise to alienation, dissatisfaction, frustration and acts of terrorism. Governments run by ambitious and self-seeking people often use repressive measures and find violence and terror an effective means of control. However, state terrorism, violence, and human freedom transgressions are very dangerous strategies. This has been the background of all revolutions in the world. Whenever there is systematic and widespread state persecution and violation of human rights, rebellion and revolution have taken place. The French, American, Russian and Chinese Revolutions are glowing examples of human history.

The first war of India’s Independence in 1857 resulted from long and systematic oppression of the Indian masses. The rapidly increasing discontent, frustration and alienation with British rule gave rise to strong national feelings and demand for political privileges and rights. Ultimately the Indian people, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, made the British leave India, setting the country free and independent.

Human rights and freedom ought to be preserved at all costs. Their curtailment degrades human life. The political needs of a country may reshape Human rights, but they should not be completely distorted. Tyranny, regimentation, etc., are inimical of humanity and should be resisted effectively and united. The sanctity of human values, freedom and rights must be preserved and protected. Human Rights Commissions should be established in all countries to take care of human freedom and rights. In cases of violation of human rights, affected individuals should be properly compensated, and it should be ensured that these do not take place in future.

These commissions can become effective instruments in percolating the sensitivity to human rights down to the lowest levels of governments and administrations. The formation of the National Human Rights Commission in October 1993 in India is commendable and should be followed by other countries.

Also Read: Law Courses in India

Human rights are of utmost importance to seek basic equality and human dignity. Human rights ensure that the basic needs of every human are met. They protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and abuse, allow people to stand up for themselves, and follow any religion without fear and give them the freedom to express their thoughts freely. In addition, they grant people access to basic education and equal work opportunities. Thus implementing these rights is crucial to ensure freedom, peace and safety.

Human Rights Day is annually celebrated on the 10th of December.

Human Rights Day is celebrated to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UNGA in 1948.

Some of the common Human Rights are the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from slavery and torture and the right to work and education.

We hope our sample essays on Human Rights have given you some great ideas. For more information on such interesting blogs, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

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.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) . It establishes the rights and freedoms of all members of the human race.

It was accepted by the UNGA as per Resolution 217 during the session on December 10, 1948. Among the United Nations members at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, 8 abstained and 2 did not vote.

The UDHR has played a significant role in the history of human rights. Its significance as well as other facts will be highlighted in detail in this article. The information will be useful in the IAS Exam.

The candidates can read relevant information from the links provided below:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Overview

• The UDHR consists of 30 articles detailing an individual’s “basic rights and fundamental freedoms”. It is universally applicable for all human beings of varying race, religions and nationality.
• It directly inspired the development of international human rights law, and was the first step in the formulation of the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966 and came into force in 1976.
• Even though the Universal Human Rights Declaration is not legally binding, its contents has been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights and instruments and in the legal codes of various countries
• At least one of the 9 binding treaties of the UDHR has been ratified by all 193 member states of the United Nations , with the majority ratifying four or more.

History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The United Nations was founded by 51 countries in October 1945, two months after World War II ended. Two world wars, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a global refugee crisis had led to fears of a destructive World War II .

The UN was founded to avoid such a disaster, as well as to address human rights. Out of all the people who wanted such notions to become a reality, it was Eleanor Roosevelt – the wife of the late United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – who would play a crucial role in the formulation of the Universal Human Rights Declaration

President Harry Truman appointed Eleanor Roosevelt to the US delegation to the United Nations in 1945. She was well known throughout the world as a champion of poverty allegations and universal civil rights. It was in April 1946, after becoming chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, that she took on the task of drafting a human rights declaration for the world.

Eleanor’s ideals about human rights and desire for global peace were influenced by her experiences of both the world wars where she had worked with shell-shocked soldiers undergoing psychological treatments during World War I while she had visited the devastated cities of Europe during the second world war.

Drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not at all an easy task. For starters:

• Both the United States and the Soviet Union had their own definition of human or to put it simply could not agree on what human rights were.
• Many conservative US politicians were not fond of supporting the economic and social rights of the UDHR because in their eyes such rights were ‘communist’ in their nature and scope.

However, Elanor with her charm and diplomacy managed to gather enough support for the UDHR to be passed in a resolution.

Hansa Mehta, a UN delegate from the newly independent country of India and the only other woman on the Commission on Human Rights was crucial in shaping the declaration. It was she who changed the original declaration’s first article from “All men are born free and equal” to “All human beings are born free and equal”.

Even though the declaration isn’t binding or enforceable. It would serve as a model for legislation in many countries.

After the draft was presented to the United Nations General Assembly, it was adopted on December 10, 1946.

December 10, the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, is celebrated annually as World Human Rights Day or International Human Rights Day.

Structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was influenced by a set of laws formulated by Napoléon Bonaparte centuries before, collectively known as the Code Napoléon.

Its final structure took form in the second draft prepared by French jurist René Cassin, who worked on the initial draft prepared by Canadian legal scholar John Peters Humphrey.

The Declaration consists of the following:

The preamble gives details about the social and historical reasons that led to the formation of the UDHR.

It contains a total of 30 articles:

Significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• The UDHR is widely regarded as a groundbreaking document that provides a comprehensive and universal set of principles in a secular, apolitical document that is beyond cultural, religious and political ideologies The Declaration was the first instrument of international law to use the phrase “rule of law”, thereby establishing the principle that all members of all societies are equally bound by the law regardless of the jurisdiction or political system.
• In International law, a declaration is different from a treaty in the sense that it generally states aspiration or understanding among the parties, rather than binding obligations. For this reason, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations and, by extension, all 193 parties of the UN Charter.

Aspirants can find complete information about upcoming Government Exams through the linked article. More exam-related preparation materials will be found through the links given below

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

This post is the first installment from UChicago Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic in a series titled — The Matter of Human Rights. In this 16-part series, law students examine, question and reflect on the historical, ideological, and normative roots of the human rights system, how the system has evolved, its present challenges and future possibilities. Eleni Christou is a third year in the Law School at the University of Chicago.

Why Human Rights?

By: Eleni Christou University of Chicago Law School Class of 2019

When the term “human rights” is used, it conjures up, for some, powerful images of the righteous fight for the inalienable rights that people have just by virtue of being human. It is Martin Luther King Jr. before the Washington monument as hundreds of thousands gather and look on; it is Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom; or a 16-year-old Malala telling her story, so others like her may be heard. But what is beyond these archetypes? Does the system work? Can we make it work better? Is it even the right system for our times? In other words, why human rights?

Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability. Human rights offer us a principled framework, rooted in normative values meant for all nations and legal orders. In a world order in which states/governments set the rules, the human rights regime is the counterweight, one concerned with and focused on the individual. In other words, we need human rights because it provides us a way of evaluating and challenging national laws and practices as to the treatment of individuals.

The foundational human right text for our modern-day system is the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948, this document lays out 30 articles which define the rights each human is entitled to. These rights are designed to protect core human values and prohibit institutions and practices that are contrary to the enjoyment of the rights. Rights often complement each other, and at times, can be combined to form new rights. For example, humans have a right to liberty, and also a right to be free from slavery, two rights which complement and reinforce each other. Other times, rights can be in tension, like when a person’s right to freedom of expression infringes upon another’s right to freedom from discrimination.

In this post, I’ll provide an example of how the human rights system has been used to do important work. The international communities’ work to develop the law and organize around human rights principles to challenge and sanction the apartheid regime in South Africa provides a valuable illustration of how the human rights system can be used successfully to alleviate state human rights violations that previously would have been written off as a domestic matter.

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa had a system of racial segregation called ‘ apartheid ,’ literally meaning ‘separateness.’ The minority white population was committing blatant human rights violations to maintain their control over the majority black population, and smaller multiethnic and South Asian communities. This system of apartheid was codified in laws at every level of the country, restricting where non-whites could live, work, and simply be. Non-whites were stripped of  voting rights ,  evicted from their homes  and forced into segregated neighborhoods, and not allowed to travel out of these neighborhoods without  passes . Interracial marriage was forbidden, and transport and civil facilities were all segregated, leading to extremely inferior services for the majority of South Africans. The horrific conditions imposed on non-whites led to  internal resistance movements , which the white ruling class responded to with  extreme violence , leaving thousands dead or imprisoned by the government.

While certain global leaders expressed concern about the Apartheid regime in South Africa, at first, most (including the newly-formed UN) considered it a domestic affair. However, that view changed in 1960 following the  Sharpeville Massacre , where 69 protesters of the travel pass requirement were murdered by South African police. In 1963, the United Nations Security Council passed  Resolution 181 , which called for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, which was later made mandatory. The Security Council condemned South Africa’s apartheid regime and encouraged states not to “indirectly [provide] encouragement . . . [of] South Africa to perpetuate, by force, its policy of apartheid,” by participating in the embargo. During this time, many countries, including the United States, ended their arms trade with South Africa. Additionally, the UN urged an oil embargo, and eventually  suspended South Africa  from the General Assembly in 1974.

In 1973, the UN General Assembly passed the  International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , and it came into force in 1976. This convention made apartheid a crime against humanity. It expanded the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies outside of the South African context, and laid the groundwork for international actions to be taken against any state that engaged in these policies. This also served to further legitimize the international response to South Africa’s apartheid regime.

As the state-sanctioned violence in South Africa intensified, and the global community came to understand the human rights violation being carried out on a massive scale, countries worked domestically to place trade sanctions on South Africa, and many divestment movements gained popular support. International sports teams refused to play in South Africa and cut ties with their sports federations, and many actors engaged in cultural boycotts. These domestic actions worked in tandem with the actions taken by the United Nations, mirroring the increasingly widespread ideology that human rights violations are a global issue that transcend national boundaries, but are an international concern of all peoples.

After years of domestic and international pressure, South African leadership released the resistance leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 and began negotiations for the dismantling of apartheid. In 1994, South Africa’s apartheid officially ended with the first general elections. With universal suffrage, Nelson Mandela was elected president.

In a  speech to the UN General Assembly , newly elected Nelson Mandela recognized the role that the UN and individual countries played in the ending of apartheid, noting these interventions were a success story of the human rights system. The human rights values embodied in the UDHR, the ICSPCA, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, provided an external normative and legal framework by which the global community could identify unlawful state action and hold South Africa accountable for its system of apartheid. The international pressure applied via the human rights system has been considered a major contributing factor to the end of apartheid. While the country has not fully recovered from the trauma that decades of the apartheid regime had left on its people, the end of the apartheid formal legal system has allowed the country to begin to heal and move towards a government that works for all people, one that has openly embraced international human rights law and principles in its constitutional and legislative framework.

This is what a human rights system can do. When state governments and legal orders fail to protect people within their control, the international system can challenge the national order and demand it uphold a basic standard of good governance. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights system has grown, tackled new challenges, developed institutions for review and enforcement, and built a significant body of law. Numerous tools have been established to help states, groups, and individuals defend and protect human rights.

So why human rights? Because the human rights system has been a powerful force for good in this world, often the only recourse for marginalized and minority populations. We, as the global community, should work to identify shortcomings in the system, and work together to improve and fix them. We should not —  as the US has been doing under the current administration  — selectively withdraw, defund, and disparage one of the only tools available to the world’s most vulnerable peoples. The human rights system is an arena, a language, and a source of power to many around the world fighting for a worthwhile future built on our shared human values.

Related Articles

Pozen center 2022-23 director's report, interracial marriage under attack: thinking the unthinkable, read: "the politics of torture" by kathleen cavanaugh, read "democracies and international law" by tom ginsburg, read "agents of change: political philosophy in practice" by ben laurence.

Join our mailing list to receive a weekly digest of Pozen-related news, opportunities, and events.

© 2023 Pozen Family Center for Human Rights | Accessibility | Colophon

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Freedom: Short Stories Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

T he Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Amnesty International has commissioned an anthology to celebrate its longevity: three rousing prefaces and an inspirational epilogue, plus 35 writers, each choosing, Amnesty claims, one of the declaration's 30 articles to address creatively. A logistical nightmare, one might imagine, for the anonymous editor, and perhaps the reason that five articles are represented twice, and eight of the stories are reprints.

The declaration is, of course, itself a work of fiction, as foolish as it is noble. Its every assertion is contradicted everywhere in the world, a thousand times a day. "All human beings are born free and equal"! "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude"! "All children shall enjoy the same social protection"! Shall they? When shall they? Where? If these things were true, there would have been no need to write them down.

Still, we have to begin somewhere. "First the story, Madeleine," says Mr Kramer in David Constantine's "Asylum", which examines the overlapping meanings of its title. Madeleine is a mental patient seeking release. Mr Kramer encourages her to convey her anguish in metaphors. Freedom of expression is essential; likewise, freedom of information and education. In Nadine Gordimer's "Amnesty", the lonely wife of a political prisoner proclaims the right, above all, to read. "This ignorance must go."

Commander Prophet, addressing his squad of boy soldiers in Ishmael Beah's "ABC Antidote", champions other ideals. "Some of you might remember when you were in school and were told that the pen is mightier than the sword. Well, we have guns so they were not talking about us." Commander Prophet orders his boys to set fire to books and papers, desks and chairs and finally the school itself, to deny the enemy the cover of darkness.

So the lines are drawn. How many governments will actually let this anthology in? Marina Lewycka, Mahmoud Saeed, Juan Goytisolo, Olja Knezevic: the list of contributors is crowded with exiles. Despite the subtitle, Freedom includes much that is not fiction. In "Sofia" Henning Mankell honours the victim of a landmine in Mozambique. Alice Pung's "The Shed" commemorates her mother, a Cambodian Chinese immigrant struggling to survive in Australia. Many of the actual stories seem less like fiction than case studies or sketches for magazine articles. Creation reverts to transcription, as if the immensity of the issues overpowers the imagination.

As a compendium of global injustice, Freedom is illuminating and impressive. As an anthology, it's more like a tough box of chocolates: three dozen different centres, all containing the same indigestible nuts. So much poverty, oppression, torture; so many barbed wire fences, prison cells, smug politicians and dull-eyed soldiers. The most satisfactory, to the selfish, comfortable reader, are perhaps the more oblique and inventive stories: Constantine's "Asylum"; Richard Griffiths's nervy "The Obvious Candidate"; Rohinton Mistry's grimly jolly "The Scream"; and James Meek's "The Kind of Neighbour You Used to Have", which is like an episode of Lost written by Harold Pinter. All resoundingly on-message, each might be reprinted anywhere and read without reference to its origins as propaganda.

Colin Greenland's most recent novel is Finding Helen (Black Swan).

• Short stories

Most viewed

copyright information

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

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Freedom : short stories celebrating the universal declaration of human rights

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

10 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station49.cebu on April 20, 2021

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing

Book Review

• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 705

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The two articles that best represent the human nature are Articles 1 and 19. Article 1 states, “ 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 .” (United Nations). Article 1 emphasizes the fact that all human beings are born as masters of their own destiny and not as someone’s property. It is a human nature to desire control over one’s life and not lose freedom of actionl by being someone’s slave. Humans also desire equal rights because it appeals to their sense of fairness and justice. One cannot control where he/she is born, thus, it is not fair to discriminate against someone in terms of rights on the basis of circumstances surrounding his/her birth.

Human beings also believe what separates them from other species is their higher intelligence levels. As a result, they do not only strive for freedom of action but also freedom of reasoning because it helps them advance the collective knowledge of their kind. Humans do not like to be forced to believe in something that may not appeal to their sense of reasoning. In order to believe in something, they have to be convinced in their own ways. Humans also believe they do not exist in isolation but as part of communities which is why it is important for them to develop reliable relationships. In order to understand humans, it is important to pay attention to Article 1 because free will is arguably the most sought-after right by humans and may generate a strong reaction from them if the right is restricted in any manner.

Article 19 states, “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.” (United Nations). This article again makes it clear that humans do not like to be told how to live or what to believe. It does not matter whether what they believe is right or wrong for as long as they believe what they want to believe. Humans are also curious creatures, thus, they are continuously seeking news ideas and perceptions. Once again they seek freedom to choose their own channels of information and ideas. Articles 1 and 19 make it clear that humans seek and value freedom in all shapes and forms and respond with a strong reaction where their freedoms are limited or threatened.

Two articles that misrepresent human nature are Articles 5 and 12. Article 5 states, “ No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (United Nations). While humans do champion ideas that seem fair in theory, they rarely support those ideas without exceptions. They would not hesitate from supporting restriction of rights under Article 5 for those they don’t like or perceive as threats to their interests. Thus, humans are willing to ignore rights of others if their real or perceived interests are threatened. Article 12 states, “ No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks .” (United Nations). The problem with rights under this article is that humans believe it is sometimes justifiable to limit individual rights in the greater interests of the society. Law enforcement agencies often invade personal space of citizens, just on the basis of suspicion. Similarly, the rights under this article also conflict with another right valued by humans which is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means personal opinions do not have to be factually accurate even they attack someone’s reputation and it is especially true of public figures.

These articles misrepresent human nature to the aliens because they make it seem like these rights are absolute in nature while they are not. The articles also assume there is no conflict between rights mentioned in the articles while in reality different rights may be in conflict with each other, depending upon the circumstances.

United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 16 October 2013 <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, Book Review Example

The Equal Pay Act, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371