Human Rights: Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Essay Example

Full Submitted Article 26 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) The horrors of the two succeeding world wars (I and II) within the span of 30 years only that had dehumanized human civilizations, had shown how dreadful humans can be. Committed never to let such inhumanity happen again, world leaders of the United Nations (UN) had agreed to uphold human rights, which they formalized in what is known today, the UDHR. Cognizant of the vital role education plays in uplifting human rights and freedom and in developing human resources, Article 26 of the UDHR guarantees the inherent right to education of every person, regardless of sex, race, creed, and wealth, anywhere at all times. I. UDHR Article 26: The Right to Education A. Historical Context The UDHR, in which the right to education had been formally recognized, is an historic document, manifesting the UN’s consensual understanding of human dignity and value (Gleeson, par. 8). It had been an offshoot of the world leaders’ realization for the need to guarantee human rights anywhere at all times in order to prevent the recurrence of the abhorrent atrocities the two succeeding World Wars had inflicted against humanity (Bailey, par. 2-4). In fact, the formulation of Article 26 had gone through lengthy debates because the CHR was concerned how the educational system was used during WWII for Nazi indoctrination (Arajarvi 553). The UDHR was then meant specifically to define the human rights and fundamental freedoms referred to in the UN Charter (Oswald, Durham & Bates 72). CHR’s first draft of the UDHR, later known as the Geneva draft, was completed for less than two years of composing its entire text. This was then presented to the UN in September 1948 for final drafting, participated in by 50 member-states. Finally, on the evening of December 10, 19481 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris, the UN’s General Assembly (GA) in its resolution 217 A (III) approved the UDHR, as it is, without opposition, but with eight abstentions (six communist states, Saudi Arabia and South Africa) (Bailey, par. 23; UN, par. 6). In 1950, to propagate the declaration worldwide, the UN GA (UN, par. 1) – based on its Resolution 217 D– had called on all member-states including the UN Secretary General, the UN Specialized Agencies and international NGOs to make the widest possible publicity with clear explanation of the UDHR, which made the UDHR available in 300 languages (Claude 214). Today, the UDHR has become the cornerstone of international and domestic human rights laws (Gleeson, par. 1), but finalizing it into its current form had not gone without much debate and numerous revisions, as what had happened to Article 26. B. Structures, Processes, and Legislations From the UNESCO’s account, the writing and approval of Article 26 had gone through a series of amendments and revisions before it had been approved in its final form. Drafting of the UDHR was tasked by the UN’s General Assembly (GA) on the UN’s Commission on Human Rights (CHR),2 which to the approval of ECOSOC in March 1947, set-up its nine-member drafting committee (DC) composed of William Hodgson of Australia; John Humphrey of Canada – the UN Human Rights Division Director, who prepared the UDHR blueprint; Hernan Santa Cruz of Chile; Peng Chung Chang of China – the elected Vice-Chairman of the committee; Rene Cassin of France – the composer of the first draft; Charles Malik of Lebanon – the elected Committee Rapporteur; Charles Dukes of the United Kingdom, Alexandre Bogomolov of the USSR, and Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who on April 1946 was elected the committee chair. (93-94) Writing of the UDHR was based on three basic documents– the Secretariat’s draft outline of an International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR), the UK’s prepared IBHR draft plus a draft Resolution, and the US’s set of proposals for the rewording the Secretariat’s draft outline. Confronted with the formidable task of uniting these three documents, compounded with the DC members’ differing opinions, the DC formed a three-member temporary working group (TWG) – the leaders of France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom – to re-arrange logically articles in the Secretariat’s draft outline, to propose a redrafting of the articles as discussed in the DC, and to suggest a delineation on the articles between a Declaration and a Convention. After three meetings, the TWG assigned the initial drafting of the UDHR to Prof. Cassin, who suggested to contain the IBHR into a Declaration rather than a Convention. (94-95) Prof. Cassin’s first draft included a preamble and 44 articles, with the article concerning the right to education renumbered to 41 and which texts were significantly changedfrom the Secretariat’s version. The TWG reviewed and revised Prof Cassin’s first draft (specifically the preamble and first six articles) and submitted it to the DC, which in its Second session on December 2-17, 1947in Geneva, further examined and revised the draft. In this CHR’s session, three working groups to work separately on the Declaration, the Conventions, and the Implementation were also set-up. The Working Group on the Declaration (WGD) included representatives of Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, France, Panama, the Philippines, the USSR and the US, with Mrs. Roosevelt, the elected President and Prof. Cassin, the elected rapporteur. Several Specialized agencies, including UNESCO, and NGOs were given observer status with the simple privilege of giving suggestions and proposals. After meeting for nine times reviewing and examining each article of Prof Cassin’s second draft, in which the right to education became Article 31 with amended texts, the WGD reported the new draft to ECOSOC, which in turn circulated the new draft to member nations for comment. After which, the DC met again in May 3-21, 1948 to consider the new comments and proposals in redrafting the Declaration in time for the CHR’s third session. However, the DC ran out of time that what had achieved was the rearrangement and renumbering of the Declaration’s articles, making the Articles 31 and 31a on the right to education as Articles 27 and 28 respectively. On June 10-11, 1948, the CHR examined these two articles and made them two separate paragraphs of Article 23, with Article 27 in its amended texts the first paragraph and Article 28, unaltered, the second paragraph. (95-96) Upon completion of the Declaration, the CHR reported to ECOSOC, which after a brief general debate on the Declaration, agreed at its 7th Session in August 1948 to transmit the Declaration, unaltered, to the UN’s GA. The latter had devoted 84 meetings of its Third Committee on examining the draft Declaration. Here, Article 23 was amended and renumbered to Article 27. On December 10, 1948, except for renumbering the articles of the Declaration making Article 27 to be Article 26, the UN’s GA adopted the Third Committee’s recommended Declaration, as it stood. Of the thirty articles of the final draft of the Declaration, Article 26 was one of the six articles that had not gotten the unanimous vote – 53 voted for Article 26; three abstained. (96-97) C. Challenges The numerous changes done to Article 26 by different bodies evidently show that the formulation and legislation of the right to education had been formidable. A major challenge this Article had faced and was left unresolved, Spring stated, was the disunited view on what would justify the universality of education and what would be the precise interpretation of the right to education. This difficulty, he furthers, was due to diverse culture and languages. (2) For example, the choice of the medium of instruction in schools with minority students was an issue (Thio 137). Whereas, Arajarvi notes that among the issues the CHR had lengthily discussed in drafting Article 26 are the ethical principles in which the content of education should be founded (Arajarvi 553). Until today, Article 26 remains controversial. For example, Sinclair pointed out the “disjunction between social, cultural and economic structures and educational activities carried out in times of emergency… the interruption, degradation or destruction of education and educational systems” (Cited in Villalobos 500). D. Impact on People’s Lives The UDHR, being a declarationis a non-treaty law; thus it is not binding. However, with some of its provisions stated as general principles regarding humanity, this instrument has in fact become very ‘influential in shaping international standards’. (Kuper 26) In fact, UDHR has become the basis of many domestic and international laws. Specifically, Article 26, despite the unresolved controversy on its universality, has essentially provided the strongest argument of the people in the second and third world countries in urging their governments to prioritize education. Article 26 has also become a reference in drafting the Conventions on the Rights of the child and the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Holland 229). In other words, though it is not binding, Article 26 has firmly put in place the vital role of education in helping individuals achieve their full potential and become productive members of society. As such, though it was not categorically stated, paragraph 2 of Article 26 has essentially established what education should be – that education should be instrumental in promoting peace, justice and order for social progress and development. II. Education in National Development: Education Directly Correlates with Development A. Education in the First World: The United States The American educational system is considered to be among the best in the world, as it does not only emphasize quality, but also responds to the multi-culturally diverse educational needs of its student community. To ensure education for all school-aged children, the federal government, has enforced strict laws for compulsory basic education. Basic education in the US begins with kindergarten (5-6 years old) and ends with twelfth grade (18 years old). Public schools, funded at three different government levels: federal (8.5%), state (48.7%) and local (42.8%), provide basic education to more or less 85% of American children (“American Educational System,” pars. 1-3, 9) at 14,000 public school districts, spending $500 billion annually(US Census Bureau, School Districts, par.1). Aside from public schools, parents may enroll their children in state-certified private schools or in home-school program. Educational attainment in the US is also high – 86.68% graduated in high school, 55.60% in some college, 38.54% with associate or bachelor’s degree, 7.62% with Master’s degree, and 2.94% with doctorate/professional degree. American’s income earning is greatly define by education – high school dropouts earn $18,900 annually; high school graduates, $25,000; college graduates, $45, 400; professional degrees, $99. 300. (pars. 5-6) With a high level of education, the skills and expertise that the US economy require can be provided by its constituents, making its economic development possible. B. Education in the Third World: Haiti Haiti has been historically poor and remains among the poorest country in the world (Prou 215), with 49% of its people living in absolute poverty (US$1/day) (“Helping Haiti” 4). Analysts attribute Haiti’s poverty to the moribund state of its education, saying that education is critical to Haiti’s development, as industries require skilled workers and managers, and agriculture (the largest sector) needs technical expertise (De Regt, cited in Prou 217) and that Haitian schools have become obstacles rather than instruments for economic mobility and have further widened social disparity rather than equalizing it (Jean, cited in Prou 221). Though compulsory education for all is recognized in Haiti’s 1805 and 1987 constitution (223), reality says otherwise. Primary schools are dominantly private with only 10% as public; only 65% of Haitian children go to school and only half of them will ever complete elementary; more than half of Haitians, who are at employable age, have never completed secondary education; only 53% of Haitian population is literate (“Helping Haiti” 4). Three main problems in Haiti’s educational system are identified: accessibility, quality and content. The first two clearly violates Article 26. The government’s unwillingness to invest in public education makes education inaccessible to majority of Haitian children, which in effect deny them of their right to education. The lack of trained teachers, school facilities, books, and others deny children of quality education, which is essential to truly develop children’s potential, thus forfeiting the very essence of education. While, Haiti’s content, according to Prou, as its curriculum shows delve more on humanities, does not respond to Haiti’s needs for more technicians and agronomists (223). C. Conclusion Evidently, education plays an important role in the development of nations regardless of their level of development. To compare the US and Haiti, the correlation of education with national development and progress is very evident, showing that the more educated people a country has, the greater is its potential for progress and that education is necessary for a nation to progress and develop. Also, educational attainment greatly differentiates the opportunity available for individuals. The higher educational attainment individuals attain, the greater chance they can have high-earning income jobs. III. Mandatory Education in All Countries Comparison between the US and Haiti shows the vital importance of education to human and societal development. This alone is enough reason to make education mandatory in all countries. Through education humans can achieve their full potential (Vivekananda, cited in Patra 174), thus be empowered economically, politically, and socially, and be capacitated to develop the society where they live in, of which benefits they can enjoy. As such, this requires everyone be educated, because without education, man’s being could hardly be realized (Pestalozzi, cited in Schwartz 223), without which man cannot live with dignity, especially so that education has become a tool to better one’s life. Hence, the assertion to make education mandatory in all countries resides on a greater basic right inherent to all men – the right to life, liberty and security (UDHR, Article 3). IV. Conclusion The above discussion proves the universality of the right to education. This assertion resides on the very nature and essence of humanity, which if not realized is tantamount to dehumanizing humanity. Hence, the universality of the right to education is essentially upholding humanity. To deny this right therefore is an act of inhumanity – the very condition that the UN had been trying to avoid when the UDHR was agreed upon. Works Cited “American Educational System.” Indobase. 28 September 2011 Arajarvi, Pentti. “Article 26.” Gudmundur Alfredsson and Asbjorn Eide, eds.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999. Bailey, Peter. “The Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” History. 19 September 2011 . Claude, Richard Pierre. “The Right to Education and Human Rights Education.” Eds. Richard Pierre Claude and Burns H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action, 3rd Edition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006 Foster, Sharon. “The Conflict Between the Human Right to Education and Copyright.” Paul Torremans, ed. Intellectual Property and Human Rights. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2008. Gleeson, Kim. “Worldwide Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Bill of Rights.” History. 19 September 2011 . “Helping Haiti.” Phi Delta Kappan 2010: 4. Holland, Angela Avis. “Resolving the Dissonance of Rodriguez and the Right to Education: International Human Rights Instruments as a Source of Repose for the United States.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 2008: 229+. Oswald, Bruce, Durham, Helen and Bates, Adrian. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Commentary.” Documents on the Law of UN Peace Operations. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Patra, KK. “Lifelong Learning or Lifelong Yearnings: A New Design for Teaching and Learning.” International Journal of Management Education 2010: 173-183. Prou, Marc E. “Haitian Education under Siege: Democratization, National Development, and Social Reconstruction.” Robert I. Rotberg. ed. Haiti Renewed: Political and Economic Prospects. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997. Spring, Joel. The Universal Right to Education: Justification, Definition, and Guidelines. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Schwartz, Eugene. Millennial child: Transforming Education in the Twenty-first Century. Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1999. Thio, Li-ann. Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005. UN [United Nations]. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Secretary of the Publications Board, New York, NY. 2011. 20 September 2011 . UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization]. World Education Report 2000: The Right to Education: Towards Education for All Throughout Life. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2000. US Census Bureau. School Districts, 30 June2011. 28 September 2011. . US Census Bureau. People: Education, 19 January2005. 28 September 2011. . Read More