“a single short document of 30 articles that has probably had more impact on mankind than any other document in modern history.”
-- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, in her
statement marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sixty years ago today, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against, and 8 abstentions (the six Soviet bloc states, Saudi Arabia and South Africa).
One summer years ago, as I read through the hundreds of microfiches of the drafting documents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an article on hate speech in international law, I gained new perspectives on the document. I saw how erroneous the common assertion was that economic and social rights were supported by the Soviet bloc but opposed by the West, and how the drafting sessions were used as a forum for calling attention to racial discrimination and lynchings in the United States. The Cold War entered into the drafting sessions. And women delegates pressed for language to ensure that a “universal” declaration of rights would include women in that universe.
Rights for “all men” or “all human beings”?
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration begins: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ” The original drafts, however, began with the phrase “All men.” As Johannes Morsink writes in the e
xcellent account “Women’s Rights in the Universal Declaration” (13 Human Rights Quarterly 229-256 (1991)), a delegate from India, Hansa Mehta (right), cautioned that the term “All men” might be interpreted to exclude women, but Eleanor Roosevelt countered that “the word ‘men’ used in this sense was generally a
ccepted to include all human beings.” It was only through tenacious lobbying by women such as Hansa Mehta and Danish delegate Bodil Begtrup (center in photo at left, in 1948, as Chair of the UN Commission on the Status of Women) – as well as a message from Secretary General Trygve Lie in support of rewording proposed by the Commission on the Status of Women – that the clause was changed to begin “All human beings.”
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration begins: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ” The original drafts, however, began with the phrase “All men.” As Johannes Morsink writes in the e
xcellent account “Women’s Rights in the Universal Declaration” (13 Human Rights Quarterly 229-256 (1991)), a delegate from India, Hansa Mehta (right), cautioned that the term “All men” might be interpreted to exclude women, but Eleanor Roosevelt countered that “the word ‘men’ used in this sense was generally accepted to include all human beings.” It was only through tenacious lobbying by women such as Hansa Mehta and Danish delegate Bodil Begtrup (center in photo at left, in 1948, as Chair of the UN Commission on the Status of Women) – as well as a message from Secretary General Trygve Lie in support of rewording proposed by the Commission on the Status of Women – that the clause was changed to begin “All human beings.”Omitting equal rights of men and women
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration reiterates the preambular clauses of the United Nations Charter, but in its first drafts, the Declaration omitted one: the Charter’s reaffirmation of the “equal rights of men and women.” Mor
sink writes that Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic (left, with Eleanor Roosevelt) urged explicit inclusion of equality in the Universal Declaration’s preamble, saying that in some countries the term “everyone” did not necessarily mean every person. Hansa Mehta of India said that the omission of the Charter’s equal rights clause, when the Charter’s other preambular clauses were included, could be interpreted as an intentional omission and lead to discrimination. (Morsink, p.232) The Third Committee voted 32-2 to include reference to the Charter’s reaffirmation of the “equal rights of men and women” in the UDHR’s preamble. Voting against: China and the United States.
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration reiterates the preambular clauses of the United Nations Charter, but in its first drafts, the Declaration omitted one: the Charter’s reaffirmation of the “equal rights of men and women.” Mor
sink writes that Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic (left, with Eleanor Roosevelt) urged explicit inclusion of equality in the Universal Declaration’s preamble, saying that in some countries the term “everyone” did not necessarily mean every person. Hansa Mehta of India said that the omission of the Charter’s equal rights clause, when the Charter’s other preambular clauses were included, could be interpreted as an intentional omission and lead to discrimination. (Morsink, p.232) The Third Committee voted 32-2 to include reference to the Charter’s reaffirmation of the “equal rights of men and women” in the UDHR’s preamble. Voting against: China and the United States. Racial discrimination and lynchings in the United States
The drafting sessions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as a forum for bringing attention to the racial discrimination and violations of the right to life that were taking place in the United States. Just a few of several examples:
The drafting sessions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as a forum for bringing attention to the racial discrimination and violations of the right to life that were taking place in the United States. Just a few of several examples:
When the Soviet Union proposed a clause requiring states to punish advocacy of racial, national or religious hostility, Eleanor Roosevelt announced that the US would oppose this proposal, stating that such a law could not be applied in practice. The Soviet representative countered that if no such provision were adopted, practices such as "lynching of negroes would continue."
In the General Assembly the day before adoption of the Universal Declaration, the Ukrainian delegate stated that “in countries the economic structure of which differed from that of the USSR, men spoke of political, national, or racial equality while, on the other hand, they did not hesitate to lynch Negroes, as in the United States . . . .” In a speech in the General Assembly the following day, the delegate from the Byelorussian SSR remarked that the clause guaranteeing freedom of expression “could be cited in its present form by fascist organisations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, to justify their activities.” The Polish delegate said he would have supported the Declaration if, amongst other things, “he had thought that is adoption would ensure that the negroes of Mississippi would have the right to vote.”
Rights – and duties
Although the UDHR contains only one explicit reference to duties, in Article 29, stating that “everyone has duties to the community,” Mrs. Menon of India saw implied reference to duties throughout the declaration. In her speech in the General Assembly the day the Universal Declaration was adopted, she stated: “. . . as Mahatma Gandhi had said, all rights were born of obligations, and no man could claim the right to live unless he fulfilled his duties as a citizen of the world. From the very fact that it proclaimed rights, therefore, the declaration was a declaration of obligations.”
Although the UDHR contains only one explicit reference to duties, in Article 29, stating that “everyone has duties to the community,” Mrs. Menon of India saw implied reference to duties throughout the declaration. In her speech in the General Assembly the day the Universal Declaration was adopted, she stated: “. . . as Mahatma Gandhi had said, all rights were born of obligations, and no man could claim the right to live unless he fulfilled his duties as a citizen of the world. From the very fact that it proclaimed rights, therefore, the declaration was a declaration of obligations.”
The myth of opposition by the West to economic, social and cultural rights
It is commonly asserted that during the drafting of the Universal Declaration, the inclusion of economic and social rights was supported by the communist states but opposed by the West. The Soviet Union and its allies did point out that the civil and political rights favored by the West were not in fact enjoyed those states due to economic considerations. Just one example, from a speech in the General Assembly during discussion of the draft declaration:
Mr. Manuilsky (Ukrainian SSR): “The laws of many countries guaranteed the freedom of the Press, but, since printing presses and paper were privately owed, that freedom was controlled by the political opinions of the owners.”
For its part, the United States lost no opportunity to emphasize its position that the economic, social and cultural rights in the Declaration did not impose any obligations on a government (see Eleanor Roosevelt’s speech, referenced below). But as is evident from the speeches made on the floor of the UN General Assembly the day before and the day of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, support for economic and social rights came from far and wide, along with the understanding that one cannot truly enjoy one set of rights without the other.
Click here to listen to and read Eleanor Roosevelt’s speech before the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948 – the day before the historic vote to adopt the Declaration.
Here is a sampling of statements about economic and social rights during discussion in the General Assembly of the draft UDHR on December 9 and 10, 1948:
General Romulo (Philippines): “a traditional declaration of political rights would be insufficient unless buttressed by a declaration of economic and social rights.”
Mr. van Roijen (Netherlands): “the inclusion of social and economic rights constituted a marked improvement over previous declarations.”
Mr. Watt (Australia): “The Australian delegation attached particular importance to articles 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the draft declaration, which dealt with economic and social rights . . . . Those rights flowed from certain provisions which had been incorporated in the [United Nations] Charter on Australia’s suggestion, namely, the provisions of Articles 55 and 56, under which Member States pledged to take . . . action . . . so as to ensure higher standards of living, full employment and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Mr. Aikman (New Zealand): noted “with satisfaction the place given to economic and social rights. . . . Economic and social rights could give the individual the normal conditions of life which would enable him to experience greater freedom, and in New Zealand it was considered a government function to promote their realization.”
Mrs. Menon (India): “Earlier declarations had not mentioned rights such as the right to equal pay for equal work; the right of mothers and children to social protection, . . . ; the right to education; equality of rights for men and women. Those rights were the expression of a new social order, of true democracy based on social justice.”
Mr. Vasconcellos (Paraguay): "Millions of men [sic] would rejoice to think that they or their descendants would one day enjoy such elementary rights as freedom to move about at will, freedom to choose where they would live, to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to benefit from social and economic security, the right to rest and enjoy leisure . . . ."
Mr. Carrera Andrade (Ecuador): “ . . .the right of man to work and his right to benefit from his leisure, the right to a decent standard of living, and the right to social security. All those rights constituted the real triumph of the twentieth century, and were the foundation for the modern democratic system which believed that social peace depended on the well-being of the individual.”
