Human Rights -- More Than a Declaration

I just finished reading another lengthy nonfiction historical text on the history of international human rights. (Sidenote, I like blogging because unlike mass emails, it's totally optional whether you want to receive these thoughts and experiences... so if lengthy book reports don't get you pumped to start your day, feel free to skip ahead!)

The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen by Paul Gordon Lauren, gives the full and complicated history of how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came to be (and came to be understood as universal, but that's a separate story.) In my recent discussion with the OSCE media freedoms chief about freedom of expression, he said something that struck me as an important distinction between the framework international organizations use now to encourage states to adhere to their international obligations as opposed to where we were less than three generations ago.

"The framework is in place," he said, "the laws, the constitutions, the human rights apparatus is largely there in the states we work with. Our job is mainly fine tuning, finding those areas that need greater protection or definition and working to uphold the standards already agreed to." It's important to note he was referring to the 56 European and Central Asian states in the OSCE, not the entire global community, but I think his comments I've paraphrased point out the difference normative human rights standards have made to the international world order.

Led by Eleanor Roosevelt, those who compiled the "magna carta for humankind" asserted formally for the first time a set of principles exhilarating and remarkable in their universal aim despite the breadth and scope of opinions they encapsulated. Drawing upon the collective and contentious insight of individuals and state representatives from East and West, developed and developing, Communist and Capitalist, the draft was meant to define what constituted a "right," irrespective of race, ethnicity, religious belief, or country of origin. The three basic tenets that spring from the Universal Declaration are that (1) All people possess certain basic and identifiable rights, (2) universal standards exist for the world as a whole, and (3) human rights are matters of international concern, which transcend domestic jurisdiction.

The Declaration was unanimously approved (with eight abstentions) by the UN General Assembly in 1948. This did not mean immediate realization of the rights defined in the document, but it did unleash a flurry of constitutional and legal amendments around the world, using the new framework of human rights as a basis for changing domestic law. As a result, in most of the developed world, the language of human rights is enshrined in domestic law. More importantly, individuals around the world have a clearer sense of their rights and access to international justice (especially when civil society is able to help in this regard.)

The Universal Declaration is just that, a Declaration, without implementation requirements or enforcement mechanisms, but at the same time, this document is much more than a declaration. Vocal critics of its passage, like the former Soviet Union, recognized that to be bound to the Universal Declaration, would mean accepting limitations on state sovereignty. States adhering to its principles would not have an unqualified right to do within their borders what they wished, and although we are still a long ways from its full and universal realization, it articulated a vision that truly changed the world, sparking a still ongoing debate.