Seven decades after its adoption by the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) remains a beacon of hope for the world, sending out an unequivocal message that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and that no abuse of human rights can be allowed to continue without being challenged.
While illiberalism and authoritarianism are on the rise, it is important to recall that the UDHR — and the covenants and conventions it has inspired — champions every person’s right to life, liberty and security. Incorporated into many countries’ constitutions, it stipulates that no one should be subjected to torture, arbitrary arrest or detention. It enshrines the rights to a fair trial, privacy, free expression and association, and freedom of thought in religion and conscience. Moreover, it emphasizes important social and economic rights, such as the right to work and form labor unions.
However, the authors of the UDHR — created amid the Cold War politics of the 1940s — could only agree on what rights people should have, not on why these rights should be regarded as fundamental, let alone how or by whom they should be protected. At the outset, there were no enforcement treaties, no proper appeal mechanisms, and, until much later, not even basic covenants that countries could sign.
A creature of its time, the UDHR also says little about the rights of women, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community and children. And so, despite major advances over the past seven decades — such as the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN’s Responsibility to Protect doctrine — human-rights abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate and with virtual impunity.
To make recommendations relevant to a review of the UDHR at 70, New York University convened the Global Citizenship Commission (of which I was chair) under the auspices of John Sexton and Paul Boghossian. Our deliberations were informed by a team of philosophers brilliantly led by Jeremy Waldron.
Beyond enumerating rights, the commission argued for clarity about who should carry out the duties — and how. Time and again, vetoes or threats of vetoes by the permanent members of the UN Security Council have blocked action. The resulting paralysis has not only permitted massive loss of human life; it has also undermined the credibility of collective security, enabling increasingly flagrant human-rights abuses.
To address this, the commission’s report recommends that the Security Council’s permanent members voluntarily suspend their vetoes in situations involving mass atrocities and, by implication, allow more scope for the ICC. Moreover, beyond identifying the more detailed responsibilities of governments and international institutions, new mechanisms should be created to ensure corporate compliance with human rights.
It is to the credit of the UDHR’s authors that, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, a single declaration enshrines not only civil and political rights, but also social and economic rights.
However, it is not enough to declare that such rights are important. In South Africa, for example, a modern constitution includes explicit commitments to upholding social rights. Yet, the country has found no satisfactory means of enforcing them.
The desperate plight of the world’s nearly 70 million displaced people and more than 20 million refugees has just been recognized in new agreements hammered out in December this year. The commission’s report asserts unequivocally that the world’s refugee protection system should be strengthened, not least by reaching an effective consensus on the balance between the right to movement and the power of states to restrict it — with the long-term objective of a new international convention that supports the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 10.7, which commits states to “facilitate safe, orderly, regular and responsible migration.”
One of the commission’s most urgent sets of recommendations relates to the treatment of children now at risk in the world’s 40-plus ongoing wars.
A new report that emerged this year from the commission’s work, Protecting Children in Armed Conflict, edited by Shaheed Fatima, Queen’s Counsel, also calls for radical changes: for schools in conflict zones to enjoy the same effective protection as hospitals; for states to take measures to prevent sexual violence against children and prevent child abductions and trafficking; and for a clear declaration that the denial of humanitarian access is always unlawful where civilians are at risk of starvation.
Former US first lady Eleanor Roosevelt — the driving force behind the UDHR — once said human rights begin “in small places close to home, so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
The Ordinary Virtues by Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff, which grew from a Carnegie study, indicates that even in the world’s most desolate and lawless corners, individuals have a strong sense of their own rights and also, if to a lesser extent, of the importance of treating those close to them with decency.
Yet, even as the world becomes more deeply integrated, millions do not have a strong sense that human rights should be upheld as the universal rights of all. That is why the commission, citing the work of Fonna Forman, founding director of the Center on Global Justice at the University of California, San Diego, makes recommendations about how governments might encourage and support human-rights education — something that few countries do.
After all, as Roosevelt pointed out, documents expressing ideals “carry no weight unless the people know them, unless the people understand them, unless the people demand that they be lived.” That simple truth must underpin the world’s agenda for championing human rights now and in the future.
Gordon Brown, former British prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer, is UN special envoy for global education and chair of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with