Всеобщая декларация прав человека как пишется

§ 194. В
составных названиях важнейших документов и сборников документов,
государственных законов, а также архитектурных и других памятников, предметов и
произведений искусства с прописной буквы пишется первое слово и собственные
имена, напр.:

Конституция Российской Федерации,
Федеративный договор, Устав ООН, Декрет о мире, Всеобщая декларация прав
человека, Кодекс законов о труде, Уголовный кодекс РФ, Основы гражданского
законодательства, Государственная конвенция по беженцам, Великая хартия
вольностей, Ипатьевская летопись, Красная книга (перечень охраняемых
животных и растений), Книга рекордов Гиннесса;

Сикстинская капелла, Исаакиевский собор,
Большой Кремлёвский дворец, Пискарёвское мемориальное кладбище, Елагин дворец,
Зимний дворец, Великая Китайская стена, Триумфальная арка, Водовзводная башня,
Грановитая палата, Медный всадник (памятник), Венера
Милосская, Колосс Родосский, Янтарная комната (в Царском Селе), Эйфелева башня, Царь-колокол;

Девятая симфония Бетховена, Вторая баллада
Шопена, Первый концерт для фортепьяно с оркестром Чайковского, Ленинградская
симфония Шостаковича, Лунная соната Бетховена.

Примечание 1. Начальное родовое наименование
в подобных названиях архитектурных и других памятников, произведений искусства
пишется со строчной буквы, напр.: памятник
Пушкину, памятник «ТысячелетиеРоссии», дом Пашкова, портрет Достоевского работы
Перова, полонез Огинского (но: Дворец конгрессов, Дворец наций).

Примечание 2. В таких названиях мемориальных
сооружений и сборников документов, как Могила Неизвестного Солдата, Стена Плача, Аллея Славы, Курган Бессмертия,
Книга Памяти, с прописной буквы пишутся первое слово и
последующие слова, выражающие высокие священные понятия; но в сочетании Вечный огонь — только
первое слово.

Примечание 3. В названиях архитектурных
памятников с первым словом — пишущимся через дефис прилагательным от
географического названия, с прописной буквы пишутся оба компонента
прилагательного, напр.: Санто-Домингский
собор (ср. Санто-Доминго,
город).

Примечание 4. О написании названий, связанных
с религией, см. § 186, 187.

Примечание 5. Названия художественных стилей
пишутся со строчной буквы, напр.: ампир,
барокко, готика, рококо, ренессанс (ср. Ренессанс в значении эпохи, § 179).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt holding the English language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The human rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly of its 183rd meeting, held in Paris on 10 December 1948
Created	1948
Ratified	10 December 1948
Location	Palais de Chaillot, Paris
Author(s)	Draft Committee[a]
Purpose	Human rights
Official Website
un.org/udhr
Full Text
Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Wikisource

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a UN committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France.^[1] Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.^[2]

A foundational text in the history of human and civil rights, the Declaration consists of 30 articles detailing an individual’s «basic rights and fundamental freedoms» and affirming their universal character as inherent, inalienable, and applicable to all human beings.^[1] Adopted as a «common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations», the UDHR commits nations to recognize all humans as being «born free and equal in dignity and rights» regardless of «nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status».^[3] The Declaration is considered a «milestone document» for its «universalist language», which makes no reference to a particular culture, political system, or religion.^[4][5] 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. Although not legally binding, the contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions and legal codes.^[6][7][8]

All 193 member states of the United Nations have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties influenced by the Declaration, with the vast majority ratifying four or more.^[1] While there is a wide consensus that the declaration itself is non-binding and not part of customary international law, there is also a consensus that many of its provisions are binding and have passed into customary international law,^[9][10] although courts in some nations have been more restrictive on its legal effect.^[11][12] Nevertheless, the UDHR has influenced legal, political, and social developments on both the global and national levels, with its significance partly evidenced by its 530 translations, the most of any document in history.^[13]

Structure and content[edit]

The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was influenced by the Code Napoléon, including a preamble and introductory general principles.^[14] 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 sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the Declaration.
• Articles 1–2 establish the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality.
• Articles 3–5 establish other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture.
• Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited for their defence when violated.
• Articles 12–17 set forth the rights of the individual towards the community, including freedom of movement and residence within each state, the right of property and the right to a nationality.
• Articles 18–21 sanction the so-called «constitutional liberties» and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
• Articles 22–27 sanction an individual’s economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to an adequate standard of living, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.
• Articles 28–30 establish the general means of exercising these rights, the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society, and the prohibition of the use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations Organization.^[15]

Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a foundation, steps, four columns, and a pediment.^[16] Articles 1 and 2—with their principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood—served as the foundation blocks. The seven paragraphs of the preamble, setting out the reasons for the Declaration, represent the steps leading up to the temple. The main body of the Declaration forms the four columns. The first column (articles 3–11) constitutes rights of the individual, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery. The second column (articles 12–17) constitutes the rights of the individual in civil and political society. The third column (articles 18–21) is concerned with spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of religion and freedom of association. The fourth column (articles 22–27) sets out social, economic, and cultural rights. Finally, the last three articles provide the pediment which binds the structure together, as they emphasize the mutual duties of every individual to one another and to society.^[16]

History[edit]

Background[edit]

During World War II, the Allies—known formally as the United Nations—adopted as their basic war aims the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.^[17][18] Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Charter was debated, drafted, and ratified to reaffirm «faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person» and commit all member states to promote «universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion».^[19] When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became fully apparent after the war, the consensus within the world community was that the UN Charter did not sufficiently define the rights to which it referred.^[20][21] It was deemed necessary to create a universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals so as to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.^[22]

Creation and drafting[edit]

In June 1946, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)—a principal organ of the newly founded United Nations responsible for promoting human rights—created the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), a standing body within the United Nations tasked with preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights.^[23] It had 18 members from various national, religious, and political backgrounds, so as to be representative of humanity.^[24] In February 1947, the Commission established a special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, to write the articles of the Declaration. Roosevelt, in her position, was key to the U.S. effort to encourage the General Assembly’s adoption of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[25] The Committee met in two sessions over the course of two years.

Canadian John Peters Humphrey, the newly appointed Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat, was called upon by the UN Secretary-General to work on the project, becoming the Declaration’s principal drafter.^[26][27] Other prominent members of the Drafting Committee included Vice-Chairman P.C. Chang of the Republic of China, René Cassin of France; and its Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon.^[28] A month after its creation, the Drafting Committee was expanded to include representatives of Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, in addition to the inaugural members from China, France, Lebanon, and the United States.^[29]

Humphrey is credited with devising the «blueprint» for the Declaration, while Cassin composed the first draft.^[30] Both received considerable input from other members, each of whom reflected different professional and ideological backgrounds. The Declaration’s pro-family phrases allegedly derived from Cassin and Malik, who were influenced by the Christian Democracy movement;^[31] Malik, a Christian theologian, was known for appealing across religious lines and cited the Summa Theologica, and studied the different Christian sects.^[29] Chang urged removing all references to religion to make the document more universal, and used aspects of Confucianism to settle stalemates in negotiations.^[32] Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, an educator and judge, strongly supported the inclusion of socioeconomic rights, which had been opposed by some Western nations.^[29] The members agreed that the philosophical debate centered between the opposing views of Chang and Malik, with Malik later singling out Chang when thanking the members, saying there were too many to mention, but Chang’s ideas impacted his own views in the making of the draft.^[33][34][35]

In her memoirs, Roosevelt commented on the debates and discussions that informed the UDHR, describing one such exchange during the Drafting Committee’s first session in June 1947:

Dr. Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there is more than one kind of ultimate reality. The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than simply Western ideas and Dr. Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach. His remark, though addressed to Dr. Humphrey, was really directed at Dr. Malik, from whom it drew a prompt retort as he expounded at some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Dr. Humphrey joined enthusiastically in the discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr. Chang suggested that the Secretariat might well spend a few months studying the fundamentals of Confucianism!^[29]

In May 1948, roughly a year after its creation, the Drafting Committee held its second and final session, where it considered the comments and suggestions of member states and international bodies, principally the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, which took place the prior March and April; the Commission on the Status of Women, a body within ECOSOC that reported on the state of women’s rights worldwide; and the Ninth International Conference of American States, held in Bogota, Colombia from March to May of 1948, which adopted the South American-based American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the world’s first general international human rights instrument.^[36] Delegates and consultants from several United Nations bodies, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations also attended and submitted suggestions.^[37] It was also hoped that an International Bill of Human Rights with legal force could be drafted and submitted for adoption alongside the Declaration.^[36]

Upon the session’s conclusion on 21 May 1948, the Committee submitted to the Commission on Human Rights a redrafted text of the «International Declaration of Human Rights» and the «International Covenant of Human Rights», which together would form an International Bill of Rights.^[36] The redrafted Declaration was further examined and discussed by the Commission on Human Rights in its third session in Geneva 21 May through 18 June 1948.^[38] The so-called «Geneva text» was circulated among member states and subject to several proposed amendments; for example, Hansa Mehta of India notably suggested that the Declaration assert that «all human beings are created equal», instead of «all men are created equal», to better reflect gender equality.^[39] Charles Theodore Te Water of South Africa fought very hard to have the word dignity removed from the declaration, saying that «dignity had no universal standard and that it was not a ‘right'».^[40] Te Water believed correctly as it turned out that listing human dignity as a universal human right would lead to criticism of the apartheid system that had just been introduced by the new National Party government of South Africa.^[40] Malik in response stated it was Prime Minister Jan Smuts of South Africa who had played an important role in drafting the United Nations Charter in 1945 and it was Smuts who inserted the word dignity as a universal human right into the charter.^[40] Despite te Water’s efforts, the word dignity was included in the declaration as a universal human right.^[40]

With a vote of 12 in favour, none opposed, and four abstaining, the CHR approved the proposed Declaration, though was unable to examine the contents and implementation of the proposed Covenant.^[41] The Commission forwarded the approved text of the Declaration, as well as the Covenant, to the Economic and Social Council for its review and approval during its seventh session in July and August 1948.^[42] The Council adopted Resolution 151(VII) of 26 August 1948, transmitting the draft International Declaration of Human Rights to the UN General Assembly.^[42]

The Third Committee of the General Assembly, which convened from 30 September to 7 December 1948 during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly, held 81 meetings concerning the draft Declaration, including debating and resolving 168 proposals for amendments by United Nations member states.^[43][44] On its 178th meeting on 6 December, the Third Committee adopted the Declaration with 29 votes in favour, none opposed and seven abstentions.^[43] The document was subsequently submitted to the wider General Assembly for its consideration on 9 and 10 December 1948.

Adoption[edit]

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly as UN Resolution A/RES/217(III)[A] on 10 December 1948 in Palais de Chaillot, Paris.^[45][b] Of the 58 United Nations members at the time,^[46] 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained,^[47][48] and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain.^[49]

Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with having been instrumental in mustering support for the Declaration’s adoption, both in her native U.S. and across the world, owing to her ability to appeal to different and often opposing political blocs.^[50]

The meeting record provides firsthand insight into the debate on the Declaration’s adoption.^[51] South Africa’s position can be seen as an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated several articles in the Declaration.^[47] Saudi Arabia’s abstention was prompted primarily by two of the Declaration’s articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right «to change his religion or belief», and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.^[47] The abstentions by the six communist nations were explained by their claim that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and national-socialism.^[52] However, Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the actual point of contention as being Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries.^[53] Other observers point to the Soviet bloc’s opposition to the Declaration’s «negative rights», such as provisions calling on governments not to violate certain civil and political rights.^[50]

The British delegation, while voting in favour of the Declaration, expressed frustration that the proposed document had moral obligations but lacked legal force;^[54] it would not be until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.

The 48 countries that voted in favour of the Declaration are:^[55]

a. ^ Despite the central role played by the Canadian John Peters Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first abstained from voting on the Declaration’s draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the General Assembly.^[56]

Eight countries abstained:^[55]

Two countries did not vote:

The majority of current UN member states gained sovereignty and joined the organization later, which accounts for the relatively small number of states entitled to the historical vote.^[57]

International Human Rights Day[edit]

10 December, the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, is celebrated annually as World Human Rights Day or International Human Rights Day. The commemoration is observed by individuals, community and religious groups, human rights organizations, parliaments, governments, and the United Nations. Decadal commemorations are often accompanied by campaigns to promote awareness of the Declaration and of human rights in general. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration, and was accompanied by year-long activities around the theme «Dignity and justice for all of us».^[58] Likewise, the 70th anniversary in 2018 was marked by the global #StandUpForHumanRights campaign, which targeted youth.^[59]

Impact[edit]

Significance[edit]

At the time of the Declaration’s significance by the General Assembly in 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt said:^[60]

In giving our approval to the declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.

The UDHR is considered groundbreaking for providing a comprehensive and universal set of principles in a secular, apolitical document that explicitly transcends cultures, religions, legal systems, and political ideologies.^[5] Its claim to universality has been described as «boundlessly idealistic» and the «most ambitious feature».^[61]

The Declaration was officially adopted as a bilingual document in English and French, with official translations in Chinese, Russian and Spanish, all of which are official working languages of the UN.^[62] Due to its inherently universalist nature, the United Nations has made a concerted effort to translate the document into as many languages as possible, in collaboration with private and public entities and individuals.^[63] In 1999, the Guinness Book of Records described the Declaration as the world’s «Most Translated Document», with 298 translations; the record was once again certified a decade later when the text reached 370 different languages and dialects.^[64][65] The UDHR achieved a milestone of over 500 translations in 2016, and as of 2021, has been translated into 530 languages,^[66] remaining the most translated document.^[67]

In its preamble, governments commit themselves and their people to progressive measures that secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption of the text as a declaration, rather than as a treaty, because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States.^[68] Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been incorporated into or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing number of regional, subnational, and national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.

The Declaration’s all-encompassing provisions serve as a «yardstick» and point of reference by which countries’ commitments to human rights are judged, such as through the treaty bodies and other mechanisms of various human rights treaties that monitor implementation.^[50]

Legal effect[edit]

In international law, a declaration is distinct from a treaty in that it generally states aspirations or understandings among the parties, rather than binding obligations.^[69] The Declaration was explicitly adopted to reflect and elaborate on the customary international law reflected in the «fundamental freedoms» and «human rights» referenced in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.^[69] 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 United Nations Charter.

Nevertheless, the status of the Declaration as a legally enforceable document varies widely around the world: some countries have incorporated it into their domestic laws, while other countries consider it merely a statement of ideals, with no binding provisions.^[70]

Many international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate its articles.^{[71][72][73][74][75][76]} One prominent international jurist described the UDHR as being «universally regarded as expounding generally accepted norms.»^[77] Other legal scholars have further argued that the Declaration constitutes jus cogens, fundamental principles of international law from which no state may deviate or derogate.^[78] The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration «constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community» to all persons.^[79]

The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding United Nations human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in other binding international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognized human rights.^[80]

National law[edit]

According to a 2022 study, the UDHR «significantly accelerated the adoption of a particular set of [national] constitutional rights.»^[81] One scholar estimates that at least 90 national constitutions drafted since the Declaration’s adoption in 1948 «contain statements of fundamental rights which, where they do not faithfully reproduce the provisions of the Universal Declaration, are at least inspired by it.»^[82] At least 20 African nations that attained independence in the decades immediately following 1948 explicitly referenced the UDHR in their constitutions.^[82] As of 2014, the constitutions that still directly cite the Declaration are those of Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Haiti, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Niger, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Togo, and Yemen.^[82] Moreover, the constitutions of Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Spain compel their courts to «interpret» constitutional norms consistently with the Universal Declaration.^[83]

Judicial and political figures in many nations have directly invoked the UDHR as an influence or inspiration on their courts, constitutions, or legal codes. Indian courts have ruled the Indian Constitution «[embodies] most of the articles contained in the Declaration».^[84] Nations as diverse as Antigua, Chad, Chile, Kazakhstan, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Zimbabwe have derived constitutional and legal provisions from the Declaration.^[82] In some cases, specific provisions of the UDHR are incorporated or otherwise reflected in national law. The right to health or to protection of health is found in the constitutions of Belgium, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, and Togo; constitutional obligations on the government to provide health services exist in Armenia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Finland, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Thailand, and Yemen.^[84]

A survey of U.S. cases through 1988 found five references to the Declaration by the United States Supreme Court; sixteen references by federal courts of appeal; twenty-four references by federal district courts; one reference by a bankruptcy court; and several references by five state courts.^[85] Likewise, research conducted in 1994 identified 94 references to the Declaration by federal and state courts across the U.S.^[86]

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration «does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law», and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can «scrutinize» the nation’s obligations to international instruments and their enforceability.^[12] However, U.S. courts and legislatures may still use the Declaration to inform or interpret laws concerned with human rights,^[87] a position shared by the courts of Belgium, the Netherlands, India, and Sri Lanka.^[87]

Reaction[edit]

Praise and support[edit]

The Universal Declaration has received praise from a number of notable activists, jurists, and political leaders. Lebanese philosopher and diplomat Charles Malik called it «an international document of the first order of importance»,^[88] while Eleanor Roosevelt—first chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that helped draft the Declaration—stated that it «may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.»^[89] At the 1993 United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, one of the largest international gatherings on human rights,^[90] diplomats and officials representing 100 nations reaffirmed their governments’ «commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights» and emphasized that the Declaration as «the source of inspiration and has been the basis for the United Nations in making advances in standard setting as contained in the existing international human rights instruments.»^[82] In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the Declaration «one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time», despite the Vatican never adopting it.^[91] In a statement on 10 December 2003 on behalf of the European Union, Marcello Spatafora said that the Declaration «placed human rights at the centre of the framework of principles and obligations shaping relations within the international community».^[92]

As a pillar of international human rights, the UDHR enjoys widespread support among international and nongovernmental organizations. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), one of the oldest human rights organizations, has as its core mandate the promotion of the respect for all rights set out in the Declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.^[93][94] Amnesty International, the third oldest international human rights organization,^[95] has regularly observed Human Rights Day and organized worldwide events to bring awareness and support of the UDHR.^[96] Some organizations, such as the Quaker United Nations Office, the American Friends Service Committee, and Youth for Human Rights International (YHRI) have developed curriculum or programmes to educate young people on the UDHR.^[97][98][99]

Specific provisions of the UDHR are cited or elaborated by interest groups in relation to their specific area of focus. In 1997, the council of the American Library Association (ALA) endorsed Articles 18 through 20 concerning freedoms of thought, opinion, and expression,^[100] which were codified in the ALA Universal Right to Free Expression and the Library Bill of Rights.^[101] The Declaration formed the basis of the ALA’s claim that censorship, invasion of privacy, and interference of opinions are human rights violations.^[102]

Criticism[edit]

Muslim-majority countries[edit]

Most Muslim-majority countries that were then members of the United Nations signed the Declaration in 1948, including the kingdoms of Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq, Pahlavi Iran, and the First Syrian Republic; the Republic of Turkey, which had an overwhelmingly Muslim population but an officially secular government, also voted in favour.^[103] Saudi Arabia was the sole abstainer on the Declaration among Muslim-majority countries, claiming that it violated the Islamic law (sharīʿa).^[104][105] Pakistan, officially an Islamic state, signed the declaration and critiqued the Saudi position,^[106] strongly arguing in favour of including freedom of religion as a fundamental human right of the UDHR.^[107]

Moreover, some Muslim diplomats would later help draft other United Nations human rights treaties. For example, Iraq’s representative to the United Nations, Bedia Afnan’s insistence on wording that recognized gender equality resulted in Article 3 within the ICCPR and ICESCR, which, together with the UDHR, form the International Bill of Rights. Pakistani diplomat Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah influenced the drafting of the Declaration, especially with respect to women’s rights, and played a role in the preparation of the 1951 Genocide Convention.^[107]

In 1982, the Iranian diplomat to the United Nations, who represented the country’s newly installed Islamic republic, stated that the Declaration was «a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition» that could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with sharīʿa law.^[108]

On 30 June 2000, member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which represents most of the Muslim world,^{[citation needed]} officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,^[104][109] an alternative document that says people have «freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah», without any discrimination on grounds of «race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations». The Cairo Declaration is widely acknowledged to be a response to the UDHR, and uses similar universalist language, albeit derived solely from Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).^[110]

Regarding the promulgation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, T. Jeremy Gunn, Professor of Law and Political Science at the International University of Rabat in Morocco, has stated:

the twenty-two-member League of Arab States (Arab League)—each of whose members also belongs to the OIC and is majority-Muslim—created its own human rights instruments and institutions (based in Cairo) that set it apart from the international human rights regime. While the term «Arab» denotes an ethnicity and «Muslim» references a religion, all majority-Arab countries are also majority-Muslim countries, though the opposite does not hold. Indeed, the preponderance of Muslim-majority countries is not Arab. It has long been recognized that the Muslim-majority Arab world ranks particularly poorly with respect to human rights. According to the 2009 Arab Human Development Report, written by Arab experts for the United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Arab States, «Arab states seem content to ratify certain international human rights treaties, but do not go so far as to recognize the role of international mechanisms in making human rights effective.» […] The resistance to implementation of international human rights standards in parts of the Muslim and Arab worlds is perhaps most salient with the panoply of rights related to religion. In terms of the UDHR, the core of the resistance is centered on issues of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18), prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion (Article 2), and the prohibition of discrimination against women (preamble, Article 2, Article 16). The same resistance to universal standards, already present in the UDHR, continued in subsequent elaborations of human rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.^[104]

A number of scholars in different fields have expressed concerns with the Declaration’s alleged Western and secularist bias.^[104] Abdulaziz Sachedina observes that Muslims broadly agree with the Declaration’s universalist premise, which is shared by Islam, but differ on specific contents, which many find «insensitive to particular Muslim cultural values, especially when it comes to speaking about individual rights in the context of collective and family values in Muslim society».^{[111]: 50–51} However, he notes that most Muslim scholars, while opposing the inherently secular framework of the document, do respect and acknowledge some of its «foundations».^{[111]: 50–51} Sachedina further argues that many Christians similarly criticized the Declaration for allegedly reflecting a secular and liberal bias in opposition to certain religious values.^{[111]: 50–51}

Kazakh religion scholars Galym Zhussipbek and Zhanar Nagayeva have argued that the rejection or failed implementation of human rights in Muslim-majority countries and their seeming incompatibility with sharīʿa law originates from the current «epistemological crisis of conservative Islamic scholarship and Muslim mind», rooted in the centuries-old confinement of a role for reason within strict limits, and in the disappearance of rationalistic discursive Islamic theology (kalām) as a dynamic science from the Muslim world.^[112] Furthermore, they affirm the necessity of undertaking an epistemological reform in Islamic scholarship, which denotes the incorporation of international standards of human rights and justice into the epistemology and methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh).^[112]

Riffat Hassan, a Pakistani-born American Islamic feminist scholar and Muslim theologian, has argued:

What needs to be pointed out to those who uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the highest, or sole, model, of a charter of equality and liberty for all human beings, is that given the Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the «universality» of the assumptions on which it is based is—at the very least—problematic and subject to questioning. Furthermore, the alleged incompatibility between the concept of human rights and religion in general, or particular religions such as Islam, needs to be examined in an unbiased way.^[113]

Faisal Kutty, a Muslim Canadian human rights activist, opines that a «strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home […]. It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights.»^[114] Irene Oh, director of the peace studies programme at Georgetown University, has argued that Muslim reservations towards some provisions of the UDHR, and the broader debate about the document’s secular and Western bias, could be resolved through mutual dialogue grounded in comparative descriptive ethics.^[115]

«The Right to Refuse to Kill»[edit]

Groups such as Amnesty International^[116] and War Resisters International^[117] have advocated for «The Right to Refuse to Kill» to be added to the Universal Declaration, as has Seán MacBride, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace Prize laureate.^[118] War Resisters International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from Article 18 of the UDHR, which preserves the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.^[117] Some steps have been taken within the UN to make the right more explicit, with the Human Rights Council repeatedly affirming that Article 18 enshrines «the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion».^[119][120]

American Anthropological Association[edit]

The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR during its drafting process, warning that its definition of universal rights reflected a Western paradigm that was unfair to non-Western nations. They further argued that the West’s history of colonialism and evangelism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world. They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism:

1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences.
2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered.
3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.^[121]

Bangkok Declaration[edit]

During the lead-up to the World Conference on Human Rights that was held in 1993, ministers from several Asian states adopted the Bangkok Declaration, which reaffirms their governments’ commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their belief that human rights are interdependent and indivisible, and stressed the need for universality, objectivity, and non-selectivity of human rights. However, at the same time, they emphasized the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, calling for greater emphasis upon economic, social, and cultural rights, and in particular, the right to economic development by establishing international collaboration directives between the signatories. The Bangkok Declaration is considered to be a landmark expression of Asian values with respect to human rights, which offers an extended critique of human rights universalism.^[122]

See also[edit]

Human rights[edit]

• History of human rights
• Yogyakarta Principles

Non-binding agreements[edit]

• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990)
• Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993)
• United Nations Millennium Declaration (2000)

International human rights law[edit]

Thinkers influencing the Declaration[edit]

• Thomas Aquinas
• Jean de Gerson
• Hugo Grotius
• Confucius – via the influence of P.C. Chang.^[123]
• Samuel von Pufendorf
• John Locke
• Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Thomas Jefferson
• Jacques Maritain
• Herbert George Wells

Other[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

• Text of the UDHR
• Official translations of the UDHR
• Resource Guide on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN Library, Geneva.
• Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – documents and meetings records – United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• Questions and answers about the Universal Declaration
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• UDHR – Education
• UDHR in Unicode
• Revista Envío – A Declaration of Human Rights For the 21st Century
• Introductory note by Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and procedural history note on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
• The Laws of Burgos: 500 Years of Human Rights from the Law Library of Congress blog.

Audiovisual materials[edit]

• UDHR Audio/Video Project (recordings in 500+ languages by native speakers)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights recorded in multiple languages at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at AmericanRhetoric.com
• Animated presentation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Amnesty International on YouTube (in English duration 20 minutes and 23 seconds).
• Audio: Statement by Charles Malik as Representative of Lebanon to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Universal Declaration, 6 November 1948
• UN Department of Public Information introduction to the drafters of the Declaration
• Audiovisual material on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt holding the English language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The human rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly of its 183rd meeting, held in Paris on 10 December 1948
Created	1948
Ratified	10 December 1948
Location	Palais de Chaillot, Paris
Author(s)	Draft Committee[a]
Purpose	Human rights
Official Website
un.org/udhr
Full Text
Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Wikisource

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a UN committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France.^[1] Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.^[2]

A foundational text in the history of human and civil rights, the Declaration consists of 30 articles detailing an individual’s «basic rights and fundamental freedoms» and affirming their universal character as inherent, inalienable, and applicable to all human beings.^[1] Adopted as a «common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations», the UDHR commits nations to recognize all humans as being «born free and equal in dignity and rights» regardless of «nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status».^[3] The Declaration is considered a «milestone document» for its «universalist language», which makes no reference to a particular culture, political system, or religion.^[4][5] 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. Although not legally binding, the contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions and legal codes.^[6][7][8]

All 193 member states of the United Nations have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties influenced by the Declaration, with the vast majority ratifying four or more.^[1] While there is a wide consensus that the declaration itself is non-binding and not part of customary international law, there is also a consensus that many of its provisions are binding and have passed into customary international law,^[9][10] although courts in some nations have been more restrictive on its legal effect.^[11][12] Nevertheless, the UDHR has influenced legal, political, and social developments on both the global and national levels, with its significance partly evidenced by its 530 translations, the most of any document in history.^[13]

Structure and content[edit]

The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was influenced by the Code Napoléon, including a preamble and introductory general principles.^[14] 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 sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the Declaration.
• Articles 1–2 establish the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality.
• Articles 3–5 establish other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture.
• Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited for their defence when violated.
• Articles 12–17 set forth the rights of the individual towards the community, including freedom of movement and residence within each state, the right of property and the right to a nationality.
• Articles 18–21 sanction the so-called «constitutional liberties» and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
• Articles 22–27 sanction an individual’s economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to an adequate standard of living, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.
• Articles 28–30 establish the general means of exercising these rights, the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society, and the prohibition of the use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations Organization.^[15]

Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a foundation, steps, four columns, and a pediment.^[16] Articles 1 and 2—with their principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood—served as the foundation blocks. The seven paragraphs of the preamble, setting out the reasons for the Declaration, represent the steps leading up to the temple. The main body of the Declaration forms the four columns. The first column (articles 3–11) constitutes rights of the individual, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery. The second column (articles 12–17) constitutes the rights of the individual in civil and political society. The third column (articles 18–21) is concerned with spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of religion and freedom of association. The fourth column (articles 22–27) sets out social, economic, and cultural rights. Finally, the last three articles provide the pediment which binds the structure together, as they emphasize the mutual duties of every individual to one another and to society.^[16]

History[edit]

Background[edit]

During World War II, the Allies—known formally as the United Nations—adopted as their basic war aims the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.^[17][18] Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Charter was debated, drafted, and ratified to reaffirm «faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person» and commit all member states to promote «universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion».^[19] When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became fully apparent after the war, the consensus within the world community was that the UN Charter did not sufficiently define the rights to which it referred.^[20][21] It was deemed necessary to create a universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals so as to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.^[22]

Creation and drafting[edit]

In June 1946, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)—a principal organ of the newly founded United Nations responsible for promoting human rights—created the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), a standing body within the United Nations tasked with preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights.^[23] It had 18 members from various national, religious, and political backgrounds, so as to be representative of humanity.^[24] In February 1947, the Commission established a special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, to write the articles of the Declaration. Roosevelt, in her position, was key to the U.S. effort to encourage the General Assembly’s adoption of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[25] The Committee met in two sessions over the course of two years.

Canadian John Peters Humphrey, the newly appointed Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat, was called upon by the UN Secretary-General to work on the project, becoming the Declaration’s principal drafter.^[26][27] Other prominent members of the Drafting Committee included Vice-Chairman P.C. Chang of the Republic of China, René Cassin of France; and its Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon.^[28] A month after its creation, the Drafting Committee was expanded to include representatives of Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, in addition to the inaugural members from China, France, Lebanon, and the United States.^[29]

Humphrey is credited with devising the «blueprint» for the Declaration, while Cassin composed the first draft.^[30] Both received considerable input from other members, each of whom reflected different professional and ideological backgrounds. The Declaration’s pro-family phrases allegedly derived from Cassin and Malik, who were influenced by the Christian Democracy movement;^[31] Malik, a Christian theologian, was known for appealing across religious lines and cited the Summa Theologica, and studied the different Christian sects.^[29] Chang urged removing all references to religion to make the document more universal, and used aspects of Confucianism to settle stalemates in negotiations.^[32] Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, an educator and judge, strongly supported the inclusion of socioeconomic rights, which had been opposed by some Western nations.^[29] The members agreed that the philosophical debate centered between the opposing views of Chang and Malik, with Malik later singling out Chang when thanking the members, saying there were too many to mention, but Chang’s ideas impacted his own views in the making of the draft.^[33][34][35]

In her memoirs, Roosevelt commented on the debates and discussions that informed the UDHR, describing one such exchange during the Drafting Committee’s first session in June 1947:

Dr. Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there is more than one kind of ultimate reality. The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than simply Western ideas and Dr. Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach. His remark, though addressed to Dr. Humphrey, was really directed at Dr. Malik, from whom it drew a prompt retort as he expounded at some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Dr. Humphrey joined enthusiastically in the discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr. Chang suggested that the Secretariat might well spend a few months studying the fundamentals of Confucianism!^[29]

In May 1948, roughly a year after its creation, the Drafting Committee held its second and final session, where it considered the comments and suggestions of member states and international bodies, principally the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, which took place the prior March and April; the Commission on the Status of Women, a body within ECOSOC that reported on the state of women’s rights worldwide; and the Ninth International Conference of American States, held in Bogota, Colombia from March to May of 1948, which adopted the South American-based American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the world’s first general international human rights instrument.^[36] Delegates and consultants from several United Nations bodies, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations also attended and submitted suggestions.^[37] It was also hoped that an International Bill of Human Rights with legal force could be drafted and submitted for adoption alongside the Declaration.^[36]

Upon the session’s conclusion on 21 May 1948, the Committee submitted to the Commission on Human Rights a redrafted text of the «International Declaration of Human Rights» and the «International Covenant of Human Rights», which together would form an International Bill of Rights.^[36] The redrafted Declaration was further examined and discussed by the Commission on Human Rights in its third session in Geneva 21 May through 18 June 1948.^[38] The so-called «Geneva text» was circulated among member states and subject to several proposed amendments; for example, Hansa Mehta of India notably suggested that the Declaration assert that «all human beings are created equal», instead of «all men are created equal», to better reflect gender equality.^[39] Charles Theodore Te Water of South Africa fought very hard to have the word dignity removed from the declaration, saying that «dignity had no universal standard and that it was not a ‘right'».^[40] Te Water believed correctly as it turned out that listing human dignity as a universal human right would lead to criticism of the apartheid system that had just been introduced by the new National Party government of South Africa.^[40] Malik in response stated it was Prime Minister Jan Smuts of South Africa who had played an important role in drafting the United Nations Charter in 1945 and it was Smuts who inserted the word dignity as a universal human right into the charter.^[40] Despite te Water’s efforts, the word dignity was included in the declaration as a universal human right.^[40]

With a vote of 12 in favour, none opposed, and four abstaining, the CHR approved the proposed Declaration, though was unable to examine the contents and implementation of the proposed Covenant.^[41] The Commission forwarded the approved text of the Declaration, as well as the Covenant, to the Economic and Social Council for its review and approval during its seventh session in July and August 1948.^[42] The Council adopted Resolution 151(VII) of 26 August 1948, transmitting the draft International Declaration of Human Rights to the UN General Assembly.^[42]

The Third Committee of the General Assembly, which convened from 30 September to 7 December 1948 during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly, held 81 meetings concerning the draft Declaration, including debating and resolving 168 proposals for amendments by United Nations member states.^[43][44] On its 178th meeting on 6 December, the Third Committee adopted the Declaration with 29 votes in favour, none opposed and seven abstentions.^[43] The document was subsequently submitted to the wider General Assembly for its consideration on 9 and 10 December 1948.

Adoption[edit]

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly as UN Resolution A/RES/217(III)[A] on 10 December 1948 in Palais de Chaillot, Paris.^[45][b] Of the 58 United Nations members at the time,^[46] 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained,^[47][48] and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain.^[49]

Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with having been instrumental in mustering support for the Declaration’s adoption, both in her native U.S. and across the world, owing to her ability to appeal to different and often opposing political blocs.^[50]

The meeting record provides firsthand insight into the debate on the Declaration’s adoption.^[51] South Africa’s position can be seen as an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated several articles in the Declaration.^[47] Saudi Arabia’s abstention was prompted primarily by two of the Declaration’s articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right «to change his religion or belief», and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.^[47] The abstentions by the six communist nations were explained by their claim that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and national-socialism.^[52] However, Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the actual point of contention as being Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries.^[53] Other observers point to the Soviet bloc’s opposition to the Declaration’s «negative rights», such as provisions calling on governments not to violate certain civil and political rights.^[50]

The British delegation, while voting in favour of the Declaration, expressed frustration that the proposed document had moral obligations but lacked legal force;^[54] it would not be until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.

The 48 countries that voted in favour of the Declaration are:^[55]

a. ^ Despite the central role played by the Canadian John Peters Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first abstained from voting on the Declaration’s draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the General Assembly.^[56]

Eight countries abstained:^[55]

Two countries did not vote:

The majority of current UN member states gained sovereignty and joined the organization later, which accounts for the relatively small number of states entitled to the historical vote.^[57]

International Human Rights Day[edit]

10 December, the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, is celebrated annually as World Human Rights Day or International Human Rights Day. The commemoration is observed by individuals, community and religious groups, human rights organizations, parliaments, governments, and the United Nations. Decadal commemorations are often accompanied by campaigns to promote awareness of the Declaration and of human rights in general. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration, and was accompanied by year-long activities around the theme «Dignity and justice for all of us».^[58] Likewise, the 70th anniversary in 2018 was marked by the global #StandUpForHumanRights campaign, which targeted youth.^[59]

Impact[edit]

Significance[edit]

At the time of the Declaration’s significance by the General Assembly in 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt said:^[60]

In giving our approval to the declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.

The UDHR is considered groundbreaking for providing a comprehensive and universal set of principles in a secular, apolitical document that explicitly transcends cultures, religions, legal systems, and political ideologies.^[5] Its claim to universality has been described as «boundlessly idealistic» and the «most ambitious feature».^[61]

The Declaration was officially adopted as a bilingual document in English and French, with official translations in Chinese, Russian and Spanish, all of which are official working languages of the UN.^[62] Due to its inherently universalist nature, the United Nations has made a concerted effort to translate the document into as many languages as possible, in collaboration with private and public entities and individuals.^[63] In 1999, the Guinness Book of Records described the Declaration as the world’s «Most Translated Document», with 298 translations; the record was once again certified a decade later when the text reached 370 different languages and dialects.^[64][65] The UDHR achieved a milestone of over 500 translations in 2016, and as of 2021, has been translated into 530 languages,^[66] remaining the most translated document.^[67]

In its preamble, governments commit themselves and their people to progressive measures that secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption of the text as a declaration, rather than as a treaty, because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States.^[68] Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been incorporated into or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing number of regional, subnational, and national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.

The Declaration’s all-encompassing provisions serve as a «yardstick» and point of reference by which countries’ commitments to human rights are judged, such as through the treaty bodies and other mechanisms of various human rights treaties that monitor implementation.^[50]

Legal effect[edit]

In international law, a declaration is distinct from a treaty in that it generally states aspirations or understandings among the parties, rather than binding obligations.^[69] The Declaration was explicitly adopted to reflect and elaborate on the customary international law reflected in the «fundamental freedoms» and «human rights» referenced in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.^[69] 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 United Nations Charter.

Nevertheless, the status of the Declaration as a legally enforceable document varies widely around the world: some countries have incorporated it into their domestic laws, while other countries consider it merely a statement of ideals, with no binding provisions.^[70]

Many international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate its articles.^{[71][72][73][74][75][76]} One prominent international jurist described the UDHR as being «universally regarded as expounding generally accepted norms.»^[77] Other legal scholars have further argued that the Declaration constitutes jus cogens, fundamental principles of international law from which no state may deviate or derogate.^[78] The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration «constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community» to all persons.^[79]

The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding United Nations human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in other binding international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognized human rights.^[80]

National law[edit]

According to a 2022 study, the UDHR «significantly accelerated the adoption of a particular set of [national] constitutional rights.»^[81] One scholar estimates that at least 90 national constitutions drafted since the Declaration’s adoption in 1948 «contain statements of fundamental rights which, where they do not faithfully reproduce the provisions of the Universal Declaration, are at least inspired by it.»^[82] At least 20 African nations that attained independence in the decades immediately following 1948 explicitly referenced the UDHR in their constitutions.^[82] As of 2014, the constitutions that still directly cite the Declaration are those of Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Haiti, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Niger, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Togo, and Yemen.^[82] Moreover, the constitutions of Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Spain compel their courts to «interpret» constitutional norms consistently with the Universal Declaration.^[83]

Judicial and political figures in many nations have directly invoked the UDHR as an influence or inspiration on their courts, constitutions, or legal codes. Indian courts have ruled the Indian Constitution «[embodies] most of the articles contained in the Declaration».^[84] Nations as diverse as Antigua, Chad, Chile, Kazakhstan, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Zimbabwe have derived constitutional and legal provisions from the Declaration.^[82] In some cases, specific provisions of the UDHR are incorporated or otherwise reflected in national law. The right to health or to protection of health is found in the constitutions of Belgium, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, and Togo; constitutional obligations on the government to provide health services exist in Armenia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Finland, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Thailand, and Yemen.^[84]

A survey of U.S. cases through 1988 found five references to the Declaration by the United States Supreme Court; sixteen references by federal courts of appeal; twenty-four references by federal district courts; one reference by a bankruptcy court; and several references by five state courts.^[85] Likewise, research conducted in 1994 identified 94 references to the Declaration by federal and state courts across the U.S.^[86]

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration «does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law», and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can «scrutinize» the nation’s obligations to international instruments and their enforceability.^[12] However, U.S. courts and legislatures may still use the Declaration to inform or interpret laws concerned with human rights,^[87] a position shared by the courts of Belgium, the Netherlands, India, and Sri Lanka.^[87]

Reaction[edit]

Praise and support[edit]

The Universal Declaration has received praise from a number of notable activists, jurists, and political leaders. Lebanese philosopher and diplomat Charles Malik called it «an international document of the first order of importance»,^[88] while Eleanor Roosevelt—first chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that helped draft the Declaration—stated that it «may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.»^[89] At the 1993 United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, one of the largest international gatherings on human rights,^[90] diplomats and officials representing 100 nations reaffirmed their governments’ «commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights» and emphasized that the Declaration as «the source of inspiration and has been the basis for the United Nations in making advances in standard setting as contained in the existing international human rights instruments.»^[82] In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the Declaration «one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time», despite the Vatican never adopting it.^[91] In a statement on 10 December 2003 on behalf of the European Union, Marcello Spatafora said that the Declaration «placed human rights at the centre of the framework of principles and obligations shaping relations within the international community».^[92]

As a pillar of international human rights, the UDHR enjoys widespread support among international and nongovernmental organizations. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), one of the oldest human rights organizations, has as its core mandate the promotion of the respect for all rights set out in the Declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.^[93][94] Amnesty International, the third oldest international human rights organization,^[95] has regularly observed Human Rights Day and organized worldwide events to bring awareness and support of the UDHR.^[96] Some organizations, such as the Quaker United Nations Office, the American Friends Service Committee, and Youth for Human Rights International (YHRI) have developed curriculum or programmes to educate young people on the UDHR.^[97][98][99]

Specific provisions of the UDHR are cited or elaborated by interest groups in relation to their specific area of focus. In 1997, the council of the American Library Association (ALA) endorsed Articles 18 through 20 concerning freedoms of thought, opinion, and expression,^[100] which were codified in the ALA Universal Right to Free Expression and the Library Bill of Rights.^[101] The Declaration formed the basis of the ALA’s claim that censorship, invasion of privacy, and interference of opinions are human rights violations.^[102]

Criticism[edit]

Muslim-majority countries[edit]

Most Muslim-majority countries that were then members of the United Nations signed the Declaration in 1948, including the kingdoms of Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq, Pahlavi Iran, and the First Syrian Republic; the Republic of Turkey, which had an overwhelmingly Muslim population but an officially secular government, also voted in favour.^[103] Saudi Arabia was the sole abstainer on the Declaration among Muslim-majority countries, claiming that it violated the Islamic law (sharīʿa).^[104][105] Pakistan, officially an Islamic state, signed the declaration and critiqued the Saudi position,^[106] strongly arguing in favour of including freedom of religion as a fundamental human right of the UDHR.^[107]

Moreover, some Muslim diplomats would later help draft other United Nations human rights treaties. For example, Iraq’s representative to the United Nations, Bedia Afnan’s insistence on wording that recognized gender equality resulted in Article 3 within the ICCPR and ICESCR, which, together with the UDHR, form the International Bill of Rights. Pakistani diplomat Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah influenced the drafting of the Declaration, especially with respect to women’s rights, and played a role in the preparation of the 1951 Genocide Convention.^[107]

In 1982, the Iranian diplomat to the United Nations, who represented the country’s newly installed Islamic republic, stated that the Declaration was «a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition» that could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with sharīʿa law.^[108]

On 30 June 2000, member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which represents most of the Muslim world,^{[citation needed]} officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,^[104][109] an alternative document that says people have «freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah», without any discrimination on grounds of «race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations». The Cairo Declaration is widely acknowledged to be a response to the UDHR, and uses similar universalist language, albeit derived solely from Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).^[110]

Regarding the promulgation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, T. Jeremy Gunn, Professor of Law and Political Science at the International University of Rabat in Morocco, has stated:

the twenty-two-member League of Arab States (Arab League)—each of whose members also belongs to the OIC and is majority-Muslim—created its own human rights instruments and institutions (based in Cairo) that set it apart from the international human rights regime. While the term «Arab» denotes an ethnicity and «Muslim» references a religion, all majority-Arab countries are also majority-Muslim countries, though the opposite does not hold. Indeed, the preponderance of Muslim-majority countries is not Arab. It has long been recognized that the Muslim-majority Arab world ranks particularly poorly with respect to human rights. According to the 2009 Arab Human Development Report, written by Arab experts for the United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Arab States, «Arab states seem content to ratify certain international human rights treaties, but do not go so far as to recognize the role of international mechanisms in making human rights effective.» […] The resistance to implementation of international human rights standards in parts of the Muslim and Arab worlds is perhaps most salient with the panoply of rights related to religion. In terms of the UDHR, the core of the resistance is centered on issues of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18), prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion (Article 2), and the prohibition of discrimination against women (preamble, Article 2, Article 16). The same resistance to universal standards, already present in the UDHR, continued in subsequent elaborations of human rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.^[104]

A number of scholars in different fields have expressed concerns with the Declaration’s alleged Western and secularist bias.^[104] Abdulaziz Sachedina observes that Muslims broadly agree with the Declaration’s universalist premise, which is shared by Islam, but differ on specific contents, which many find «insensitive to particular Muslim cultural values, especially when it comes to speaking about individual rights in the context of collective and family values in Muslim society».^{[111]: 50–51} However, he notes that most Muslim scholars, while opposing the inherently secular framework of the document, do respect and acknowledge some of its «foundations».^{[111]: 50–51} Sachedina further argues that many Christians similarly criticized the Declaration for allegedly reflecting a secular and liberal bias in opposition to certain religious values.^{[111]: 50–51}

Kazakh religion scholars Galym Zhussipbek and Zhanar Nagayeva have argued that the rejection or failed implementation of human rights in Muslim-majority countries and their seeming incompatibility with sharīʿa law originates from the current «epistemological crisis of conservative Islamic scholarship and Muslim mind», rooted in the centuries-old confinement of a role for reason within strict limits, and in the disappearance of rationalistic discursive Islamic theology (kalām) as a dynamic science from the Muslim world.^[112] Furthermore, they affirm the necessity of undertaking an epistemological reform in Islamic scholarship, which denotes the incorporation of international standards of human rights and justice into the epistemology and methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh).^[112]

Riffat Hassan, a Pakistani-born American Islamic feminist scholar and Muslim theologian, has argued:

What needs to be pointed out to those who uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the highest, or sole, model, of a charter of equality and liberty for all human beings, is that given the Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the «universality» of the assumptions on which it is based is—at the very least—problematic and subject to questioning. Furthermore, the alleged incompatibility between the concept of human rights and religion in general, or particular religions such as Islam, needs to be examined in an unbiased way.^[113]

Faisal Kutty, a Muslim Canadian human rights activist, opines that a «strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home […]. It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights.»^[114] Irene Oh, director of the peace studies programme at Georgetown University, has argued that Muslim reservations towards some provisions of the UDHR, and the broader debate about the document’s secular and Western bias, could be resolved through mutual dialogue grounded in comparative descriptive ethics.^[115]

«The Right to Refuse to Kill»[edit]

Groups such as Amnesty International^[116] and War Resisters International^[117] have advocated for «The Right to Refuse to Kill» to be added to the Universal Declaration, as has Seán MacBride, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace Prize laureate.^[118] War Resisters International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from Article 18 of the UDHR, which preserves the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.^[117] Some steps have been taken within the UN to make the right more explicit, with the Human Rights Council repeatedly affirming that Article 18 enshrines «the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion».^[119][120]

American Anthropological Association[edit]

The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR during its drafting process, warning that its definition of universal rights reflected a Western paradigm that was unfair to non-Western nations. They further argued that the West’s history of colonialism and evangelism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world. They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism:

1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences.
2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered.
3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.^[121]

Bangkok Declaration[edit]

During the lead-up to the World Conference on Human Rights that was held in 1993, ministers from several Asian states adopted the Bangkok Declaration, which reaffirms their governments’ commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their belief that human rights are interdependent and indivisible, and stressed the need for universality, objectivity, and non-selectivity of human rights. However, at the same time, they emphasized the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, calling for greater emphasis upon economic, social, and cultural rights, and in particular, the right to economic development by establishing international collaboration directives between the signatories. The Bangkok Declaration is considered to be a landmark expression of Asian values with respect to human rights, which offers an extended critique of human rights universalism.^[122]

See also[edit]

Human rights[edit]

• History of human rights
• Yogyakarta Principles

Non-binding agreements[edit]

• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990)
• Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993)
• United Nations Millennium Declaration (2000)

International human rights law[edit]

Thinkers influencing the Declaration[edit]

• Thomas Aquinas
• Jean de Gerson
• Hugo Grotius
• Confucius – via the influence of P.C. Chang.^[123]
• Samuel von Pufendorf
• John Locke
• Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Thomas Jefferson
• Jacques Maritain
• Herbert George Wells

Other[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

• Text of the UDHR
• Official translations of the UDHR
• Resource Guide on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN Library, Geneva.
• Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – documents and meetings records – United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• Questions and answers about the Universal Declaration
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• UDHR – Education
• UDHR in Unicode
• Revista Envío – A Declaration of Human Rights For the 21st Century
• Introductory note by Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and procedural history note on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
• The Laws of Burgos: 500 Years of Human Rights from the Law Library of Congress blog.

Audiovisual materials[edit]

• UDHR Audio/Video Project (recordings in 500+ languages by native speakers)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights recorded in multiple languages at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Text, Audio, and Video excerpt of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Address to the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at AmericanRhetoric.com
• Animated presentation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Amnesty International on YouTube (in English duration 20 minutes and 23 seconds).
• Audio: Statement by Charles Malik as Representative of Lebanon to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Universal Declaration, 6 November 1948
• UN Department of Public Information introduction to the drafters of the Declaration
• Audiovisual material on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

---

Преамбула

Статья 1

Все люди рождаются свободными и равными в своем достоинстве и правах. Они наделены разумом и совестью и должны поступать в отношении друг друга в духе братства.

Статья 2

Каждый человек должен обладать всеми правами и всеми свободами, провозглашенными настоящей Декларацией, без какого бы то ни было различия, как-то в отношении расы, цвета кожи, пола, языка, религии, политических или иных убеждений, национального или социального происхождения, имущественного, сословного или иного положения. Кроме того, не должно проводиться никакого различия на основе политического, правового или международного статуса страны или территории, к которой человек принадлежит, независимо от того, является ли эта территория независимой, подопечной, несамоуправляющейся или как-либо иначе ограниченной в своем суверенитете.

Статья 3

Каждый человек имеет право на жизнь, на свободу и на личную неприкосновенность.

Статья 4

Никто не должен содержаться в рабстве или в подневольном состоянии; рабство и работорговля запрещаются во всех их видах.

Статья 5

Никто не должен подвергаться пыткам или жестоким, бесчеловечным или унижающим его достоинство обращению и наказанию.

Статья 6

Каждый человек, где бы он ни находился, имеет право на признание его правосубъектности.

Статья 7

Все люди равны перед законом и имеют право, без всякого различия, на равную защиту закона. Все люди имеют право на равную защиту от какой бы то ни было дискриминации, нарушающей настоящую Декларацию, и от какого бы то ни было подстрекательства к такой дискриминации.

Статья 8

Каждый человек имеет право на эффективное восстановление в правах компетентными национальными судами в случаях нарушения его основных прав, предоставленных ему конституцией или законом.

Статья 9

Никто не может быть подвергнут произвольному аресту, задержанию или изгнанию.

Статья 10

Каждый человек, для определения его прав и обязанностей и для установления обоснованности предъявленного ему уголовного обвинения, имеет право, на основе полного равенства, на то, чтобы его дело было рассмотрено гласно и с соблюдением всех требований справедливости независимым и беспристрастным судом.

Статья 11

1. Каждый человек, обвиняемый в совершении преступления, имеет право считаться невиновным до тех пор, пока его виновность не будет установлена законным порядком путем гласного судебного разбирательства, при котором ему обеспечиваются все возможности для защиты.
2. Никто не может быть осужден за преступление на основании совершения какого-либо деяния или за бездействие, которые во время их совершения не составляли преступления по национальным законам или по международному праву. Не может также налагаться наказание более тяжкое, нежели то, которое могло быть применено в то время, когда преступление было совершено.

Статья 12

Никто не может подвергаться произвольному вмешательству в его личную и семейную жизнь, произвольным посягательствам на неприкосновенность его жилища, тайну его корреспонденции или на его честь и репутацию. Каждый человек имеет право на защиту закона от такого вмешательства или таких посягательств.

Статья 13

1. Каждый человек имеет право свободно передвигаться и выбирать себе местожительство в пределах каждого государства.
2. Каждый человек имеет право покидать любую страну, включая свою собственную, и возвращаться в свою страну.

Статья 14

1. Каждый человек имеет право искать убежища от преследования в других странах и пользоваться этим убежищем.
2. Это право не может быть использовано в случае преследования, в действительности основанного на совершении неполитического преступления, или деяния, противоречащего целям и принципам Организации Объединенных Наций.

Статья 15

1. Каждый человек имеет право на гражданство.
2. Никто не может быть произвольно лишен своего гражданства или права изменить свое гражданство.

Статья 16

1. Мужчины и женщины, достигшие совершеннолетия, имеют право без всяких ограничений по признаку расы, национальности или религии вступать в брак и основывать свою семью. Они пользуются одинаковыми правами в отношении вступления в брак, во время состояния в браке и во время его расторжения.
2. Брак может быть заключен только при свободном и полном согласии обеих вступающих в брак сторон.
3. Семья является естественной и основной ячейкой общества и имеет право на защиту со стороны общества и государства.

Статья 17

1. Каждый человек имеет право владеть имуществом как единолично, так и совместно с другими.
2. Никто не должен быть произвольно лишен своего имущества.

Статья 18

Каждый человек имеет право на свободу мысли, совести и религии; это право включает свободу менять свою религию или убеждения и свободу исповедовать свою религию или убеждения как единолично, так и сообща с другими, публичным или частным порядком в учении, богослужении и выполнении религиозных и ритуальных обрядов.

Статья 19 Каждый человек имеет право на свободу убеждений и на свободное выражение их; это право включает свободу беспрепятственно придерживаться своих убеждений и свободу искать, получать и распространять информацию и идеи любыми средствами и независимо от государственных границ.

Статья 20

1. Каждый человек имеет право на свободу мирных собраний и ассоциаций.
2. Никто не может быть принуждаем вступать в какую-либо ассоциацию.

Статья 21

1. Каждый человек имеет право принимать участие в управлении своей страной непосредственно или через посредство свободно избранных представителей.
2.  Каждый человек имеет право равного доступа к государственной службе в своей стране.
3. Воля народа должна быть основой власти правительства; эта воля должна находить себе выражение в периодических и нефальсифицированных выборах, которые должны проводиться при всеобщем и равном избирательном праве путем тайного голосования или же посредством других равнозначных форм, обеспечивающих свободу голосования.

Статья 22

Каждый человек, как член общества, имеет право на социальное обеспечение и на осуществление необходимых для поддержания его достоинства и для свободного развития его личности прав в экономической, социальной и культурной областях через посредство национальных усилий и международного сотрудничества и в соответствии со структурой и ресурсами каждого государства.

Статья 23

1. Каждый человек имеет право на труд, на свободный выбор работы, на справедливые и благоприятные условия труда и на защиту от безработицы.
2. Каждый человек, без какой-либо дискриминации, имеет право на равную оплату за равный труд.
3. Каждый работающий имеет право на справедливое и удовлетворительное вознаграждение, обеспечивающее достойное человека существование для него самого и его семьи, и дополняемое, при необходимости, другими средствами социального обеспечения.
4. Каждый человек имеет право создавать профессиональные союзы и входить в профессиональные союзы для защиты своих интересов.

Статья 24

Каждый человек имеет право на отдых и досуг, включая право на разумное ограничение рабочего дня и на оплачиваемый периодический отпуск.

Статья 25

1. Каждый человек имеет право на такой жизненный уровень, включая пищу, одежду, жилище, медицинский уход и необходимое социальное обслуживание, который необходим для поддержания здоровья и благосостояния его самого и его семьи, и право на обеспечение на случай безработицы, болезни, инвалидности, вдовства, наступления старости или иного случая утраты средств к существованию по не зависящим от него обстоятельствам.
2. Материнство и младенчество дают право на особое попечение и помощь. Все дети, родившиеся в браке или вне брака, должны пользоваться одинаковой социальной защитой.

Статья 26

1. Каждый человек имеет право на образование. Образование должно быть бесплатным по меньшей мере в том, что касается начального и общего образования. Начальное образование должно быть обязательным. Техническое и профессиональное образование должно быть общедоступным, и высшее образование должно быть одинаково доступным для всех на основе способностей каждого.
2. Образование должно быть направлено к полному развитию человеческой личности и к увеличению уважения к правам человека и основным свободам. Образование должно содействовать взаимопониманию, терпимости и дружбе между всеми народами, расовыми и религиозными группами, и должно содействовать деятельности Организации Объединенных Наций по поддержанию мира. 3. Родители имеют право приоритета в выборе вида образования для своих малолетних детей.

Статья 27

1. Каждый человек имеет право свободно участвовать в культурной жизни общества, наслаждаться искусством, участвовать в научном прогрессе и пользоваться его благами.
2. Каждый человек имеет право на защиту его моральных и материальных интересов, являющихся результатом научных, литературных или художественных трудов, автором которых он является.

Статья 28

Каждый человек имеет право на социальный и международный порядок, при котором права и свободы, изложенные в настоящей Декларации, могут быть полностью осуществлены.

Статья 29

1. Каждый человек имеет обязанности перед обществом, в котором только и возможно свободное и полное развитие его личности.
2. При осуществлении своих прав и свобод каждый человек должен подвергаться только таким ограничениям, какие установлены законом исключительно с целью обеспечения должного признания и уважения прав и свобод других и удовлетворения справедливых требований морали, общественного порядка и общего благосостояния в демократическом обществе.
3. Осуществление этих прав и свобод ни в коем случае не должно противоречить целям и принципам Организации Объединенных Наций.

Статья 30

Ничто в настоящей Декларации не может быть истолковано, как предоставление какому-либо государству, группе лиц или отдельным лицам права заниматься какой-либо деятельностью или совершать действия, направленные к уничтожению прав и свобод, изложенных в настоящей Декларации.

Всего найдено: 9

Добрый день. Как верно: «Но мы-то знаем цену его публичных деклараций», или «Мы-то знаем цену его публичным декларациям»? Заранее спасибо!

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Верно: Мы-то знаем цену его публичным декларациям.

Добрый день!
Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли использовать выражение «Декларация о России» в значении «Декларация о суверенитете России»?
С пожеланиями творческих успехов.

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Нет, так сказать нельзя.

Всеобщая Декларация Прав Человека или Всеобщая декларация прав человека
Спасибо

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Правильно: Всеобщая декларация прав человека.

Подскажите, пожалуйста, нужны ли кавычки в названии религиозной организации Армия спасения? В названиях международных документов типа Всеобщая декларация прав человека и т. п.? Слитно или раздельно написать спец(ПУ)?

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Кавычки не нужны в обоих случаях. Корректно слитное написание: спецПУ.

Здравствуйте. Как предпочтительнее: Декларация о независимости или Декларация независимости?

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Декларировать независимость — декларация независимости. Как название исторического документа — Декларация независимости (в США, 1776).

В ГОСТе ИСО 14001 Р дано определение: «Экологическая политика (environmental policy) — заявление организации о своих намерениях и принципах, связанных с ее общей экологической эффективностью, которое служит основанием для действия и установления целевых и плановых экологических показателей.» Правилино ли употреблено слово «политика». Мне кажется точнее под это определение подходит слово «декларация«. Прав ли я? Спасибо. Игорь Георгиевич.

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Английское слово policy в данном случае можно было бы перевести более удачными эквивалентами: стратегия, принципы, нормы. Составители ГОСТа, по всей видимости, руководствовались сложившимся, устоявшимся переводом данного иноязычного термина (который очевиден в силу внешнего сходства слов политика и policy). При всех сомнениях относительно «удачности» перевода, говорить об ошибке составителей ГОСТа в данном случае не приходится.

Большое Вам спасибо!Правлю статью для журнала,в контексте есть фраза:в Декларациях Второй и Третьей Европейских конференций по охране окружающей среды…Второй и Третьей с прописной,надо ли править на строчную?Затрудняюсь,подскажите.

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Лучше: _…в Декларациях Второй и Третьей европейских конференций по охране окружающей среды_.

…инвестиционная декларация, как и договор, едина(ы) для всех участников фонда. Как верно? Спасибо.

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Предпочтительна форма множественного числа.

Скажите, пожалуйста, как правильно писать: хельсинкский или хельсинский (например в словосочетании хельсинская декларация). Заранее спасибо!

Ответ справочной службы русского языка

Правильно: _хельсинкский_.