The Importance and Limitations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Essay Example

Introduction International law is an imperfect, yet necessary, means of regulating the behavior and interrelations of sovereign s. It is essentially a way of preventing states from acting in a way that is potentially harmful to other states, yet its enforceability is problematic to say the least. Unlike the internal law of a state, it is not really possible to take a government into custody and imprison it for failure to comply with the law. To be sure, the only way to really force the compliance of a sovereign state that is determined to contravene international law would be military action - and that itself would not even be guaranteed to succeed, depending on the circumstances. One area of international law that has been consistently difficult to gain acceptance, enforcement and compliance with its agreed standards has been that of human rights. Although a clear international statement of human rights has been enshrined for over half a century within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations in 1948, there remains a relativist undercurrent with respect to how various governments interpret and apply human rights standards. Since 9/11, the concept of human rights has become even more nebulous as states that had been the leading champions of international human rights have begun to compromise their commitment to such ideals in deference to their national security. This paper will discuss the importance and limitations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will trace the history of the Declaration, discuss how it has been interpreted and applied over the decades since its adoption, and consider the ways in which modern global issues pose challenges to its spirit and premise. The difficulty of achieving uniform global human rights protections, particularly in an era heavily influenced by basic security and defense concerns, vividly illustrates the more general challenge of enforcing international law among sovereign states. Post War Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the earliest, and arguably most important, achievements of the United Nations. It very much reflects the international revulsion that came in the wake of the atrocities of World War II. The experience of the holocaust was a wakeup call, whereby the people of the world became keenly aware of what humans are capable of doing to one another. In a sense, the holocaust represented the rock bottom consequence of previous failures of the international community to come together in the spirit of promoting peace and human rights. Thus, an atmosphere of atonement and a desire to correct the obvious failures of prior international law to protect the most basic human dignities permeated the effort to implement the Declaration. Such post war attitudes clearly echo throughout the Declaration, particularly in the preamble. In fact, the very first two clauses of the preamble directly refer to the barbarity of which humans had been proven capable: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world . . . Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" (Anonymous, 2006, para. 2 and 3). Without a doubt, the framers of the Declaration clearly sought to address the atrocities of the holocaust head on. According to the American Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey D. Feltman, "The drafters of the Declaration were able to draw inspiration from heroic efforts in the post-war period to assert the primacy of human rights and the dignity of individuals" (Ambassador Feltman speaks at the 56th anniversary, 2006, para. 3). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was far more than a reaction to a particularly dark and grim period of human history, however. It genuinely revolutionized the universal conception of state responsibility for ensuring human rights and articulated a responsibility of people everywhere to seek protections for fundamental right of humans anywhere they may be. In other words, it directly challenged state sovereignty at least on this issue. According to Larry G. Cox, Professor of Humanities at Mississippi State University, "It was a virtual revolution in human thinking. It means that what a government does to any human being even within its own borders can now be of legitimate concern to all human beings, even those outside of its borders To understand the full significance of this we need to recall that before the Declaration there was virtually no limit to what a government could do to its own citizens, without having to worry about interference or criticism from other governments, Even genocide, even the holocaust, was regarded as an internal or domestic affair and nobody else's' business. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration, violations of human rights become everyone's business. The wall between internal affair and international concern is breached forever. This represents a monumental shift in the understanding of the relationship between human beings and those who govern them" (Cox, 2004, para. 7). Human Rights Post 9/11 Relations among states were clearly redefined by the Declaration, which provided a new basis for one state to interfere in the internal affairs of another in cases where human rights are being violated. Subsequently, the obligation to protect human rights has been invoked as a primary justification for military intervention in several conflicts, such as in Yugoslavia and Somalia. Nevertheless, September 11, 2001 would mark a turning point at which the United States and other nations that had been the primary champions of universal human rights would begin to compromise in favor of protecting national security. For the first time, many acts that had previously been repugnant to Western liberal democracies were seriously considered, and even implemented. These include the indefinite imprisonment of suspects without charge, the use of torture and other coercion, and warrantless surveillance and eavesdropping of a government on its own people. All of these things have been justified on some level since 9/11 by America, Britain and other democracies as a part of what they have called a "war on terror." In the United States, the Patriot Act and related laws have codified an allowance for unprecedented level of security activity by the government that is arguably inconsistent with basic precepts of human rights. Human rights advocates have express concern, for example, that the "Military Commissions Act of 2006 will allow harsh techniques bordering on torture, such as sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia" (Bennett, 2006, para. 20). Certainly, the protection of the people is among the most basic responsibilities of government. However, when the people's basic rights are sacrificed on the premise of providing for their safety, it raises serious questions about whether there is a better way. According to Cox, "Today the new threat we face clearly also requires multiple responses -including military ones -but each passing year has only reinforced the central and most hard earned lesson of the past century, that no fight for freedom or against terror can be won if it does not seek to expand and strengthen human rights everywhere" (para. 22). Indeed, human rights are arguably the secret weapon in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, it is a weapon that has yet to be discovered. "Acts of terror are crimes against humanity, Human rights law not only allows but requires governments to do all that is possible to prevent such acts and bring to justice those who commit them. But human rights law also serves as an invaluable check on our worse impulses to act in ways that blur the distinction between us and those we oppose and perpetuate the cycle of violence. To follow the path of human rights would mean setting an example to a world that desperately needs one of how to fight crimes of terror without sacrificing respect for human dignity and freedom. It would mean building a truly global alliance and strengthening international institutions, not to impose American values, but to uphold universal human rights values and laws that the world has already recognized as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace" (para. 29). Conclusion Ultimately, international human rights, as codified within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has presented an important responsibility and an opportunity for international relations. Born out of the carnage of World War II, it was informed by the experiences of an era far removed from the one in which the world currently finds itself. It truly revolutionized the way sovereign states relate with and perceive one another, providing a legitimate basis for intervening in the internal affairs of others. The redefining of global security priorities since 9/11 has presented unique new challenges for international human rights. On the one hand, terrorism is itself an affront to human rights. However, the response to this threat has not been to embrace and champion human rights, but rather to succumb to a strategy of fear that threatens to further unravel the human rights that terrorists have already threatened. If sovereign states were to come together in the spirit of the international rule of law, with its foundation in human rights, the world would move much further toward victory in the war on terror. References Ambassador Feltman speaks at the 56th anniversary. (2006, December 15). US Fed News Service. Anonymous. (2006, Spring). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Peace and Freedom, 66(1), 5. Bennett, C. (2006, October 26). Bush breaches Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York Beacon, 13(43), 9. Cox, L. (2004, February 1). A vision of a world made new: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a time of fear. Vital Speeches of the Day, 70(8), 244. Read More