On their 75th anniversary, what has become of Human Rights?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. This was three years after the UN had been established in San Francisco on 26 June 1945, following the ratification of its Charter.  

The Charter and the Declaration are intimately linked. The preamble to the first announces the second: “We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and 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 […]”. 

Never before in the course of human history had such a significant, albeit not unanimous, segment of humanity asserted that, in the words of the Declaration, “recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”  

Never before had humans’ inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights been recognized by such a significant segment of humanity

However, a quick look at the day’s news is sufficient to highlight the chasm between the proclaimed ideal and reality. As jurists, we could allege that this is not a binding international treaty, but a declaration; however, the subtleties of these concepts offer no consolation to those who suffer when it is violated. The Declaration has inspired the adoption of more than seventy treaties, and its Article 28 states that “everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”  

Among these treaties, we find the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which seek to limit the effects of armed conflict, protect persons who are not participating directly in hostilities, and impose limits on the choice of means and methods of warfare. Just the opposite of what we see, every day, on our screens.  

History advances, but with twists and turns, rather than in a straight line. On 28 September 1976, in New York, the Plenipotentiary of Spain signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which are binding. Ten years had passed since their ratification by the United Nations General Assembly, but barely two months since Adolfo Suárez had been appointed Prime Minister of Spain, leading the country's transition to democracy. The minister Marcelino Oreja asked Anton Cañellas to act as witness to the signing of these Covenants. He was a christian democrat who had always opposed Franco's regime and who had campaigned more than any other person for the Spanish government to support these agreements. Reflecting the twists and turns of history mentioned earlier, just as the Covenants were due to be signed, the Spanish police were knocking on his door to inform him that permission to stage a demonstration he had requested had not been granted.  

A careful reading of the Declaration fills me with gratitude towards those who drafted it. From the more famous co-authors, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin, to the lesser-known figures, such as Minerva Bernardino, Shaista Ikramullah or Hansa Metha, who concluded what Olympe de Gouges had started in September 1791 with her pamphlet Déclaration des Droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne by insisting on the replacement of “all men are born free and equal” with “all human beings are born free and equal.” These words and, indeed, the whole of the Declaration are worthy of an exercise in reading comprehension, to be undertaken both by young pupils and by those of us who are somewhat older.  

The common ethics of the Declaration

The fragility of the Declaration, as evidenced by the numerous violations, does not diminish its moral value, which justifies denouncement of these breaches and of those who commit them as contravening the minimum ethical common denominator. Given the unrestrained barbarism that is endemic to so many parts of the world, this condemnation falls short. Some would be quick to point out that Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, carries a sword together with her scales in order to protect the weak and the defenseless.  

The indivisibility and interdependence of human rights – principles which, together with those of universality and progressivity, must guide the authorities’ application of the Declaration – are not contradictory to our impression that the right to life, liberty and security of person (Art.3) are the first principles to be protected, and the first to come under attack from the scourge of war that the United Nations seeks to prevent.  

The fragility of the Declaration evidenced by the numerous violations does not diminish its moral value

In February 1945, when the Axis powers were close to defeat, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met in Yalta to establish the bases of the new world order, in which the victorious powers assumed the role of guarantors of peace. Decisions to be made, formally in the hands of the UN Security Council, would require the unanimity of the five permanent members (the USA, the USSR [now Russia], the UK, France and China). If this unanimity was not reached, there would be no decision. As the Professor Jordi García-Petit noted just a few days ago, this measure has worked insofar as there has not been a third world war, but international relations have evolved to create a situation in which when it is a permanent member or one of its allies that violates the international order, there is no agreement.  

Without abandoning our dream of a world in which there is full compliance with the Declaration and no wars are waged, in pursuit of this dream it is up to us to read, circulate and apply the Declaration in all those relationships in which we play an important role.