Summary
from the United Nations Yearbook 1948
Chapter V., Social,
Humanitarian and Cultural Questions; Section A., Human
Rights
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
One of the major actions of the General Assembly at
its third regular session was the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In view of the
importance of this Declaration, a brief survey is given
here of its background and of the steps leading towards
its adoption which were taken prior to 21 September 1948.
At the United Nations Conference on International
Organization, held at San Francisco in 1945, some
representatives suggested that the United Nations Charter
should contain a bill of rights. Committee I/1 of the
Conference, which was charged with the task of
considering the Preamble, Purposes and Principles of the
Charter, received the idea with sympathy, but decided
that
"the present Conference, if only
for lack of time, could not proceed to realize such a
draft in an international contract. The Organization,
once formed, could better proceed to consider the
suggestion and to deal effectively with it through a
special commission or by some other method. The Committee
recommends that the General Assembly consider the
proposal and give it effect."
At the final plenary session, on 26 June 1945, the
President of the United States stated that
"under this document [the Charter]
we have good reason to expect an international bill of
rights, acceptable to all the nations involved."
One of the principal functions of the United Nations
is to promote universal respect for, and observance of,
human rights.
Prior to the United Nations, provisions for
safeguarding human rights had been written into many
national constitutions, and certain rights in limited
fields had been guaranteed in treaties. The United
Nations Charter, however, goes further in its emphasis on
the general obligation of all the Members of the United
Nations to provide and encourage respect for human
rights, and in providing that machinery should be set up
for this purpose.
Article 1 of the Charter declares that one of the
principal purposes of the United Nations is:
"To achieve international co-operation in
promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language or religion."
Moreover, universal respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms is recognized as one of the
conditions of stability and friendly relations among
nations (Article 55). Its encouragement is one of the
basic objectives of the trusteeship system (Article 76
c).
The General Assembly may initiate studies and make
recommendations for the purpose of assisting in the
realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for
all without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion (Article 13). The Economic and Social Council
may make recommendations for the purpose of promoting
respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all (Article 62).
The importance with which the question of human rights
was regarded at the San Francisco Conference is
illustrated by the provision in the Charter, obliging the
Economic and Social Council to set up a commission or
commissions for the promotion of human rights (Article
68). The Commission on Human Rights is thus the only
Commission specifically named in the Charter.
The Economic and Social Council, on 15 February 1946,
established a Commission on Human Rights in nuclear form.
The Council decided that the work of the Commission
should primarily be devoted to submitting proposals,
recommendations and reports for an international bill of
human rights. This Commission met at Hunter College, New
York, from 29 April to 20 May 1946. At this meeting, the
Commission studied its final composition and asked the
Secretary General to collect all possible information on
the subject. At that stage, the Division of Human Rights
was set up in the Secretariat. That Division began a
study of various drafts submitted by the delegations of
Panama, Chile and Cuba and by the American Federation of
Labor, as well as private drafts, especially those of Dr.
Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, Dr. Alvarez of the
American Institute of International Law, the Rev.
Parsons, of the Catholic Association for International
Peace, Mr. McNitt of the Faculty of Law of South Western
University, and Mr. H. G. Wells.
The Economic and Social Council, on 21 June 1946,
adopted the terms of reference of the permanent
Commission on Human Rights, and determined its
membership. The Commission held its first session at Lake
Success, New York, from 27 January to 10 February 1947.
The Commission, at its first session, had before it a
number of working papers prepared by the Secretariat at
the request of the nuclear Commission, and also a number
of draft bills submitted by Governments and various
organizations. The Commission devoted a great deal of its
time to a discussion of the form and content of the
proposed bill. It decided that the Chairman, together
with the Vice-Chairman and Rapporteur, should undertake,
with the assistance of the Secretariat, the task of
formulating a preliminary draft international bill of
human rights, to be submitted to the Commission at its
second session for thorough examination. In view of the
difficulties encountered by that small drafting group, it
was suggested that it be expanded into a drafting
committee, consisting of representatives of the
Philippines, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. The
Council later endorsed this suggestion.
The Drafting Committee held its first session at Lake
Success, from 9 to 25 June 1947. In addition to a Draft
Outline of an International Bill of Human Rights prepared
by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/-AC.1/3 and Add.1), the
Drafting Committee had before it the text of a letter
from Lord Dukeston, the United Kingdom representative on
the Commission on Human Rights, transmitting a draft
International bill of Human Rights and also a draft
resolution which might be passed by the General Assembly
when adopting the Bill (E/CN.4./- AC.1/4). These two
documents were considered and compared by the Drafting
Committee, together with certain United States proposals
for the rewording of some items appearing in the
Secretariat Draft Outline (E/CN.4/AC.1/8 and Rev. 1 and
2). The Draft Outline prepared by the Secretariat was a
compilation of all the rights proposed either in
international drafts, or contained in national
constitutions or suggested by members of the Commission
on Human Rights.
Two views were put forward by the Drafting Committee
regarding the form the preliminary draft Bill should
take. Some representatives thought that the preliminary
draft, in the first instance, should take the form of a
declaration or manifesto; others felt that it should be
in the form of a convention. (A declaration or manifesto
would be a recommendation by the General Assembly to
Member States, and, as such, would have moral weight but
no legal compulsion on Members. On the other hand, a
convention would be legally binding on Members which
accepted it. Its application, however, would be limited
to the signatories.)
It was agreed by those who favoured the declaration
that it should be accompanied or followed by a convention
or conventions on specific groups of rights. It was also
agreed by those who favoured the convention that the
General Assembly in recommending a convention to Member
States might make a declaration wider in content and more
general in expression. The Drafting Committee, therefore,
while recognizing that the decision as to the form of the
Bill was a matter for the full Commission on Human
Rights, decided to prepare two documents; one, a working
paper in the form of a preliminary draft of a declaration
or manifesto setting forth general principles, and the
second, a working paper outlining a draft convention on
those matters which the Committee felt might lend
themselves to formulation as binding obligations.
The report (E/CN.4/21) submitted by the Drafting
Committee to the Commission on Human Rights included,
therefore, drafts for an international declaration and an
international convention on human rights.
The Commission on Human Rights met for its second
session at Geneva, from 2 to 17 December 1947. It was in
the course of that session that the conception of an
international bill of human rights comprising three parts
began to crystallize: a declaration, a convention, and
measures for implementation. It had become evident that
many Governments were prepared to accept a draft
declaration if it were to precede and not to replace a
convention. One result of that session was a report
(E/600) on the measures for implementation which remained
a basic document for all subsequent study in that field.
The Drafting Committee met for its second session at
Lake Success, New York, from 3 to 21 May 1948. It
considered comments on the draft International Bill of
Human Rights which had been received from a number of
Member Governments. It also took into account (1) the
suggestions of the United Nations Conference on Freedom
of Information (held at Geneva in March and April 1948)
concerning articles on freedom of information in the
draft Declaration and the draft Covenant (E/CONF. 6/79);
(2) suggestions made by the Commission on the Status of
Women on two articles in the draft Declaration (E/615);
and (3) the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties
of Man, as adopted by the Ninth International Conference
of American States, held in Bogotá, Colombia, in
March-May 1948. It redrafted the entire draft Covenant,
but had time to redraft only parts of the draft
Declaration and did not consider the question of
implementation.
The third session of the Commission on Human Rights
took place at Lake Success, from 24 May to 18 June 1948.
The Commission, at that session, based its work on the
report (E/CN.4/95) of the second session of its Drafting
Committee. The individual articles of the draft
Declaration were examined anew. The Commission was able
to complete a re-draft of the Declaration, which was
adopted without opposition, but had no time to consider
the Drafting Committee’s re-draft of the Covenant,
nor to discuss implementation, as requested by the
Economic and Social Council at its sixth session
(February and March 1948).
Because of pressure of business at its seventh
session, the Economic and Social Council decided, on 17
August 1948, that the report (E/800) of the third session
of the Commission on Human Rights, which had been
referred to the Council's Human Rights Committee, should
be recalled to the plenary session; and that in plenary
meeting there would be an opportunity for each member to
make one general statement of position.
Statements were made on 25 and 26 August by all
members of the Council. The Council then decided, on 26
August, to transmit to the General Assembly the draft
International Declaration of Human Rights submitted to it
by the Commission on Human Rights in the report of its
third session, together with the remainder of the report
of the Commission and the records of the proceedings of
the Council on the subject.
The General Assembly, at its 142nd meeting held on 24
September 1948, referred to the Third Committee the draft
International Declaration of Human Rights (E/800).
The Third Committee considered the item at its 88th to
105th, 107th to 116th, 119th to 134th, 137th to 167th,
and 174th to 179th meetings, held on 30 September to 18
October, 19 to 29 October, 30 to 12 November, 15 to 30
November, and 4 to 7 December 1948. Altogether, the Third
Committee spent eighty-one meetings in considering and
discussing the draft Declaration prepared by the
Commission on Human Rights. One hundred and sixty-eight
formal draft resolutions containing amendments to the
various articles of the draft Declaration were submitted
during the course of the Committee’s debate.
Before beginning a detailed study of each of the
articles in the draft Declaration, the Third Committee
engaged in a general debate on the draft as a whole. The
representatives of the following countries, among others,
supported the draft Declaration: Argentina, Australia,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Greece,
Guatemala, Haiti, Lebanon, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan,
Panama, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United
States, Syria, and Uruguay. The following is a summary of
the main points of view expressed by various
representatives in the general debate.
The Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (the
representative of the United States) stated that the
members of the Commission considered that the draft
Declaration represented a great step forward in the
protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental
freedoms and in their application. As the Commission had
pointed out in its report, the Declaration, she
explained, was only the first step in the elaboration of
the human rights programme called for by the Charter; it
was essential that it should be followed by a covenant on
human rights, drafted in the form of a treaty and
containing provisions for implementation. The draft
Declaration, she submitted, was not a treaty or
international agreement and did not impose legal
obligations; it was rather a statement of basic
principles of inalienable human rights setting up a
common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations. Although it was not legally binding, the
Declaration would, nevertheless, have considerable
weight. Its adoption, she continued, would commit Member
States, in the words of the preamble,
" to strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of
Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction."
A similar opinion was expressed by the representative
of Norway. He declared that, while the Declaration was
designed to set moral standards rather than to impose
legal obligations, it would be of practical value, since
it would undoubtedly serve as a basis for the discussion
in the United Nations of any question of human rights.
Human rights, he argued, should not be regarded as
falling within the domestic jurisdiction of States.
The representative of Mexico remarked that his
Government recognized that the draft Declaration was of
the greatest importance. It would not involve legal
obligations, but that would not diminish the value of the
document. He said that it would define the human rights
which States undertook to recognize and would serve as a
criterion to guide and stimulate them. At the moment, he
contended, it would be difficult to go further.
The representative of Colombia observed that the
authors of the draft Declaration did not intend to
interfere in relations between Governments, or in
relations between the Government and the citizens of any
State; they intended simply to establish a set of
principles, which should, if possible, be implemented.
Although not considering the Declaration to have legal
authority as an interpretation of the relevant provisions
of the Charter, the representative of the United Kingdom
stated that the "moral authority of the document
that would be adopted" by the General Assembly,
nevertheless, "would serve as a guide to Governments
in their efforts to guarantee human rights by legislation
and through their administrative and legal
practice."
Other representatives attributed a greater importance
to the Declaration. According to the representative of
Pakistan, it was imperative that the peoples of the world
should recognize the existence of a code of civilized
behavior which would apply not only in international
relations but also in domestic affairs.
The representative of Bolivia expressed the opinion
that the Declaration, when adopted, should provide
protection against persecution.
Some representatives went even further. The
representative of Panama objected to the
"oft-repeated sophistry" that the United
Nations was helpless to prevent violation of human rights
because under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter it
could not interfere in matters which were within the
domestic jurisdiction of States. He observed that the
Charter also included provisions concerning human rights.
Article 2, paragraph 7, he protested, dealt only with
questions which fell exclusively within domestic
jurisdiction and could not apply to matters covered under
international law. Consequently, he argued, it could not
be invoked in the case under discussion.
According to the representative of Brazil, by making
human rights international, the United Nations Charter
had placed upon States positive legal obligations.
In the opinion of the representative of the
Philippines, the primary purpose of the Declaration was
not simply to achieve a moral success, but to enable man,
all over the world, to develop his rights and, in
consequence, his personality. It was essential, he
indicated, that man should feel confident that executive,
legislative and judicial powers could not impair his
fundamental rights.
The representative of Chile remarked that the draft
Declaration merely stated, explicitly, rights granted by
the Charter. While he agreed that the proposed covenant
on human rights alone would be legally binding, violation
by any State of the rights enumerated in the Declaration,
he declared, would mean violation of the principles of
the United Nations.
The representative of France said that the Declaration
could be considered as an authoritative interpretation of
the United Nations Charter. By the adoption of the
Declaration, the question of human rights was a matter no
longer of domestic, but of international concern.
A similar opinion was expressed by the representative
of China who said that the Charter committed all Member
States to the observance of human rights, and the
Declaration stated those rights explicitly.
The representative of Australia also considered that
the draft Declaration represented a considerable advance
towards a satisfactory definition of the
"fundamental human rights" referred to in the
Charter.
The representative of Lebanon categorically stated
that no State could violate the principles of the
Declaration without also violating the terms of the
Charter. In actual fact, he observed, the resolution for
its adoption was more than a recommendation, because
there already existed a place in the Charter for a
declaration of human rights.
A few representatives - among them, the
representatives of Ecuador - regretted the fact that only
the draft Declaration could be adopted at the present
session of the Assembly, thus leaving to a future session
the adoption of a proposed convention on human rights.
Other representatives, including those of Belgium,
China and France, praised the universal character of the
draft Declaration, considering it to be a compromise
among the many points of view expressed by various
States.
The representative of New Zealand, the Union of South
Africa, Saudi Arabia, the USSR, Poland, the Byelorussian
SSR, the Ukrainian SSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia
criticized the draft Declaration.
The representative of New Zealand felt that the
Declaration should not be approved by itself, but
together with documents which would provide means of
implementation. In her opinion, the draft Declaration was
not yet a mature document which would reflect the views
of all the Members of the United Nations.
The representative of the Union of South Africa stated
that the Declaration should refer only to those
fundamental rights, the universal applicability of which
was recognized all over the world. The Declaration, as it
stood, went beyond those generally accepted rights. He
declared that his delegation could not possibly accept
the thesis that human dignity would be impaired if a
person were told he could not reside in a particular
area. Such a thesis, he explained, would destroy the
whole basis of the multi-racial structure of the Union of
South Africa and would not be in the interests of the
less advanced indigenous population. Similarly, the right
to participate in government was not universal; it was
conditioned not only by nationality but also by
qualifications of franchise. The representative of South
Africa wondered how many States were in a position to say
that they could assume any international responsibility
for the full exercise of certain economic rights
mentioned in the Declaration.
The representative of Saudi Arabia called attention to
the fact that the Declaration was based largely on
Western patterns of culture, which were frequently at
variance with the patterns of culture of Eastern States.
That did not mean, however, that the Declaration went
counter to the latter, even if it did not conform to
them.
Although admitting that the Declaration contained many
good points, the representative of Poland considered the
Declaration in its existing form to be unsatisfactory, as
it contained only one mention of the word
"democracy" and made no provision for limiting
the application of the rights. He thought that the
application of those articles dealing with the right of
asylum, the freedom of opinion and expression, and the
granting of freedom of assembly and association should be
limited so that fascists would not be able to profit by
those provisions in order to overthrow democracy. He
submitted that the adoption of the Declaration should not
entail any interference in the domestic jurisdiction of
sovereign States. He also felt that there were several
omissions in the draft, such as the omission of the right
of nations to use their own language and to develop their
own culture.
The representative of the USSR considered that the
draft Declaration did not satisfy the three conditions
which were, in the opinion of the USSR delegation,
indispensable to the completion of the Declaration,
namely: a guarantee of basic freedoms for all, with due
regard to the national sovereignty of States; a guarantee
that human rights could be exercised with due regard to
the particular economic, social and national
circumstances prevailing in each country; and a
definition of the duties of citizens to their country,
their people and their State. He regretted that fascism
was nowhere condemned in the draft. He declared that the
rights specified in the draft were illusory as they
lacked effective guarantees.
Similar criticisms were expressed by the
representatives of the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian
SSR.
The representative of Yugoslavia expressed the fear
that, through lack of real substance, the Declaration
might be forgotten even before the ink of the signatures
affixed to the document had dried. For that reason, he
urged the members of the Third Committee to exert every
possible effort to draw up a text which would fulfill the
legitimate aspirations of the peoples."
The representative of Czechoslovakia also considered
the Declaration too abstract.
After concluding the general debate on the draft
Declaration, the Third Committee, at its 94th meeting,
held on 5 October, decided by 41 votes to 3, with 7
abstentions, to consider only the draft Declaration, as
the other two documents (the covenant and measures of
implementation) were not yet in a state suitable for
consideration. The Committee did not, however, exclude an
exposition of views on the other parts of the
International Bill of Rights.
The Committee, at its 95th meeting, held on 6 October,
decided by 43 votes to 6, with 7 abstentions, to start by
discussing article 1 of the draft Declaration. A detailed
examination of each article and the preamble of the draft
Declaration was then entered into by the Committee, which
devoted eighty-one meetings to its task. One hundred and
sixty-eight amendments were presented. The
Committee’s work lasted from 6 October until 7
December.
At its 166th meeting on 30 November, the Third
Committee adopted a Lebanese proposal (A/C.3/380) to set up a
sub-committee "to examine the totality of the
declaration of human rights, i.e. the twenty-nine
articles and the preamble, adopted by the Third
Committee, solely from the standpoint of arrangement,
consistency, uniformity and style and to submit proposals
thereon to the Third Committee." The Sub-Committee
was also asked to "set up a language group of five
members, one for each of the official languages, to check
and secure the exact correspondence of the text in the
five official languages."
The Sub-Committee was composed of the representatives
of the following eleven countries: Australia, Belgium,
China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Lebanon, and Poland, the
USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States. It held
ten meetings, from 1 to 4 December, and examined in
detail each article of the draft Declaration. Among other
things, the Sub-Committee proposed the division into two
parts of two of the articles of the draft- those dealing
with (1) slavery and torture, and (2) equality before the
law and right to an effective remedy by competent
national tribunals. The Sub-Committee also proposed that
the article of the draft dealing with the right to rest
and leisure should be placed after the article dealing
with the right to work rather than after the article
dealing with the right to education.
The report (A/C.3/400/Rev.1)
of the Sub-Committee was considered by the Third
Committee at its 175th to 178th meetings, held on 4 and 6
December. At the Committee's 175th meeting, on 4
December, an oral proposal of the Chairman (the
representative of Lebanon) to have the Committee proceed
to an examination, paragraph by paragraph, of the text
submitted by the Sub-Committee to make certain, first of
all, that the sense had not been altered, was adopted by
31 votes to none, with 3 abstentions.
Only minor drafting changes in the text proposed by
the Sub-Committee were made by the Committee. The
arrangement of articles was discussed at the
Committee’s 178th meeting on 6 December, at which
time a number of changes were agreed to.
After it had adopted separately the substance and the
arrangement of the draft Declaration, it also, at its
178th meeting, voted on the text as a whole. The draft
Declaration was adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 to
none, with 7 abstentions.
The voting was as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican
Republic, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran,
Lebanon, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru,
Philippines, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom,
United States, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia.
After the Third Committee had adopted the Declaration
of Human Rights, it adopted by 28 votes to none, with 8
abstentions, a French draft resolution (A/C.3/381), which was slightly
amended by Cuba (A/C.3/402), the
Dominican Republic, China, Lebanon and Syria, and which
called upon the General Assembly to recommend that Member
Governments publicize the text of the Declaration and
cause it to be disseminated as widely as possible.
At the 179th meeting of the Third Committee on 7
December, the representative of the USSR explained why
his delegation had abstained from voting on the draft
Declaration. He observed that most of the USSR amendments
to the draft Declaration had been rejected, and the text
adopted at the 178th meeting was practically identical
with the original draft and was unsatisfactory. He
therefore submitted a draft resolution (A/C.3/407) which stated that the
text of the Declaration considered by the Third Committee
required "serious improvements in a whole series of
articles", and which requested the Assembly to
postpone the final adoption of the Declaration to its
next session. The USSR draft was supported by the
representatives of the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian
SSR.
The representatives of the United States, the
Philippines, France, and Ecuador opposed the USSR draft.
They maintained that the action contemplated in the USSR
draft would be illegal in view of the fact that the
Committee had already adopted the draft Declaration.
On being put to the vote, the USSR draft resolution
was rejected by 6 votes in favour to 26 against, with 1
abstention.
The report of the Third Committee (A/777)
was considered at the 180th to 183rd plenary meetings of
the General Assembly, on 9 and 10 December. Altogether,
thirty-five delegations spoke in the general debate, many
of them raising points which they had previously raised
in the Third Committee.
Various representatives underlined the importance of
the Declaration. The representative of Lebanon stated
that the Declaration was destined to mark an important
stage in the history of mankind. The representative of
the United States said that the Declaration was inspired
by a sincere desire for peace, and that it was based on
the conviction that man must have freedom in order to
develop his personality to the full and have his dignity
respected. The representative of Chile maintained that
once the Declaration were approved, no one could infringe
upon the rights proclaimed in it without becoming an
outcast from the community of nations. The representative
of France considered the Declaration to be the most
vigorous and the most urgently needed of humanity’s
protests against oppression. The representative of the
Philippines pointed out that, during its third session,
the United Nations had been on trial for its life and
that it was at that very moment that it had justified its
existence before an anxious world by producing the
Declaration.
The representative of Cuba proclaimed the Declaration
expressed in particularly clear and precise terms the
most noble aspirations of twentieth-century man. The
representative of Iceland regarded the Declaration as a
preamble to a future world constitution. The
representative of the United Kingdom stressed the fact
that the preparation of the draft Declaration was a
milestone on the road of human progress. Never before, he
said, had so many nations joined together to agree on
what they considered to be the fundamental rights of the
individual.
According to the representative of Mexico, the
adoption of the Declaration was one of the most important
actions in the history of the United Nations. The
representative of Pakistan stated that his delegation
fully associated itself with what had been said in praise
of the Declaration. In the opinion of the representative
of Denmark, the Declaration made the promises of the
Charter regarding equality of men and women a living
reality. The representative of India expressed the hope
that the Declaration would pave the way to a new era of
international solidarity, because the basis of rights was
neither the State nor the individual, but the social
human being, participating in social life, and striving
for national and international co-operation. The
representative of Canada stated that the Declaration was
inspired by the highest ideals and expressed the most
noble principles and aspirations. As a result of the
Declaration, the representative of Bolivia said, humanity
would enter upon a new phase which should lead to the
establishment of a true international constitution,
founded on the limitation of the sovereignty of States
for the benefit of the individual. Though imperfect, the
Declaration was the most harmonious, comprehensive and
universal that had been so far achieved, and its
principles were very advanced, compared with the
conditions prevailing in some countries, the
representative of Paraguay declared.
The representative of Lebanon drew attention to the
fact that eighteen articles of the Declaration had been
adopted without any opposition. Of a total of 1,233
individual votes, 88.08 percent had been affirmative,
3.73 per cent negative, and 8.19 per cent had been
abstentions.
A number of representatives drew attention to the
Declaration's universality and to the attitude of
compromise shown by the delegations working on it. The
representative of the United States stated that the
Declaration represented a compromise which did not
contain everything that each country would have wished it
to contain; nevertheless, her country regarded it as a
satisfactory document. The representative of Chile
recalled that fifty-eight civilized nations had succeeded
in overcoming ideological and juridical differences, and
had agreed on a joint proclamation of human rights.
Stressing that it was impossible to attain complete
agreement on doctrine, the representative of France
pointed out that an agreement based on the practical as
well as the ideal had been achieved. The Declaration, he
said, represented a considerable effort on the part of
individuals groups and States. To the French
representative, the chief novelty of the Declaration was
its universality. Because it was universal, he said, the
Declaration could have a broader scope than national
declarations.
The document, the representative of the Philippines
pointed out, could make no claims to perfection since it
had been the result of a compromise, but compromise, he
stated, was the essence of democracy and the very basis
of the United Nations. Nations which had taken part in
the preparation of the Declaration, the representative of
Australia observed, differed profoundly in their
political, economic, social and religious points of view,
and divergencies were bound to become apparent regarding
the manner in which the various aspects of the question
should be approached and treated. The Declaration,
therefore, presented an effort at compromise and mutual
understanding. He thought that, having been accepted and
approved by the majority of Members of the United
Nations, the Declaration would go forth to the world with
much greater strength and authority.
The representative of Brazil said that the Declaration
did not reflect the particular point of view of any one
people or of any one group of peoples. Neither was it the
expression of any particular political doctrine or
philosophical system. It was, he declared, the result of
the intellectual and moral co-operation of a large number
of nations. The preparation of the Declaration, explained
the representative of New Zealand, had been a difficult
task, since its authors had different social, economic
and philosophical backgrounds, but it had proved that
with good will and a sincere desire to co-operate, it was
possible for divergent points of view to be reconciled.
Thus, he submitted, the Declaration could justly be
described as being "universal."
Another point covered in the general debate was the
need to supplement the Declaration with a convention and
measures for implementation. The representatives of
Haiti, Lebanon, France, the United States, the United
Kingdom, and New Zealand, among others, spoke of this
need.
Some representatives spoke of the effect that the
adoption of the Declaration would have on men and
nations. The representative of the United States
considered it to be first and foremost a declaration of
basic principles to serve as a common standard for all
nations. Although the Declaration was not legally binding
on Governments, it should have great moral force, the
representative of the Netherlands submitted, and would
serve as a guiding light to all those who endeavored to
raise man's material standard of living and spiritual
condition. According to the representative of Mexico, the
Declaration would serve as the basis for the realization
of one of the highest aims of the United Nations, that of
developing and encouraging universal respect for human
rights. The representative of New Zealand expressed the
opinion that the Declaration, as a statement of
principles, had moral force only.
Other representatives attributed even far greater
importance to the Declaration. The representative of
Lebanon recalled that the Members of the United Nations
had already solemnly pledged themselves, under the
Charter, to promote respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms, but that it was the first time that
human rights and fundamental freedoms had been set forth
in detail. Hence, every Government knew, at that time, to
what extent exactly it had pledged itself, and every
citizen could protest to his Government if the latter did
not fulfill its obligations. The Declaration, he claimed,
would therefore provide a useful means of criticism, and
would help to bring about changes in present legal
practice. According to the representative of Chile, men
everywhere would henceforth know what their rights and
freedoms were. All States which were signatories to the
Declaration undertook to respect and extend the basic
rights proclaimed.
The representative of France explained that, while the
Declaration was less powerful and binding than a
convention, it had no less legal value, for it was
contained in a resolution of the General Assembly which
was empowered to make recommendations; it was a
development of the Charter which had brought human rights
within the scope of positive international law. The
Declaration, said the representative of Uruguay, was a
natural complement to the Charter. Its enforcement and
respect for its provisions would become one of the
obligations of Member States. He argued that human rights
would in the future be protected and defended by all the
peoples of the State Members of the United Nations. The
representative of Bolivia declared that he had been
instructed by his Government to state that Bolivia would
pledge itself solemnly to adhere to the provisions of the
Declaration.
Although supporting enthusiastically the Declaration,
the representatives of, inter alia, the Netherlands,
Belgium, Canada and Egypt criticized certain of its
aspects. The representative of the Netherlands regretted
that man's divine origin and immortal destiny had not
been mentioned in the Declaration, for the fount of those
rights was the Supreme Being. The representative of
Belgium considered that it would have been desirable to
acknowledge the real basis of the equality of rights,
namely, the common origin and destiny of all men. He also
viewed the order of the articles as being imperfect.
In the view of the representative of Canada, the
Declaration was often worded in vague and unprecise
language. The imperfections and ambiguities of the
Declaration might have been removed, he remarked, if a
body of jurists, such as the International Law
Commission, had been asked to review the text before it
had been submitted to the General Assembly.
Referring to the article in the Declaration concerning
the freedom to contract marriage without any restrictions
as to race, nationality or religion, the representative
of Egypt explained that in his country as in almost all
Moslem countries, certain restrictions and limitations
existed regarding the marriage of Moslem women with
persons belonging to another faith. Those limitations, he
contended, were of a religious character, sprung from the
very spirit of the Moslem religion, and therefore could
not be ignored. He also feared that, by proclaiming man's
freedom to change his religion or belief, the Declaration
would be encouraging, even though it might not be
intentional, the machinations of certain missions,
well-known in the Orient, which pursued their efforts to
convert to their own beliefs the masses of the population
of the Orient.
The draft Declaration was criticized by the
representatives of the Union of South Africa, the USSR,
the Ukrainian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the Byelorussian SSR,
Poland and Yugoslavia.
In the opinion of the representative of the Union of
South Africa, the Declaration went far beyond the rights
and freedoms contemplated in the Charter. He expressed
doubt as to the wisdom of a declaration which would be
honoured in the breach rather than in the observance of
its provisions.
According to the representative of the USSR, the
Declaration suffered from serious defects and omissions.
Some of the articles dealing with extremely important
questions - such as the article on slavery and the
article on the right to education - were, in his opinion,
in a very abstract form. He considered that the article
dealing with the freedom to disseminate ideas did nor
solve the problem of freedom of expression, as the
diffusion of dangerous ideas, such as war-mongering and
fascist ideas, should be prevented. That same article, he
submitted, made no provision for the free dissemination
of just and lofty ideas. If freedom of expression was to
be effective, the workers, he argued, must have the means
of voicing their opinions, and for that they must have at
their disposal printing presses and newspapers. The right
to street demonstrations, he said, should be guaranteed.
He declared that it was necessary to make certain that
scientific research would not be used for war purposes
which would obviously hinder progress. He drew the
Assembly's attention to a defect in the Declaration which
he considered to be fundamental: the absence of
provisions guaranteeing the rights of national
minorities. He also regretted the failure of the
Declaration to mention the sovereign rights of States.
He submitted a draft resolution (A/788/Rev.2)
recommending that the General Assembly postpone adoption
of the Declaration until its fourth regular session. The
representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and Yugoslavia supported the
Soviet draft resolution.
The representative of the Ukrainian SSR stated that
the Declaration contained a series of rights which could
not be exercised, in view of the existing conditions and
the economic structure of a great number of countries.
Several elementary democratic rights which could be
realized even in a capitalist society had been
deliberately omitted. Before the right to work, to rest
and to education could be put into effect, he submitted,
it was necessary to alter drastically the economic system
of private enterprise. He said that there could be true
equality among men only under an economic system which
guaranteed to everyone equal conditions and opportunities
for the development of his own potentialities, and that
was not the equality mentioned in the Declaration.
The Declaration, maintained the representative of
Czechoslovakia, was not imbued with revolutionary spirit;
it was neither bold nor modern. The abolition of the
death sentence in peace time was not agreed to; nor were
"fascism" and "aggression" denounced
publicly and formally. The Declaration, he observed, took
no account of the practical aspects of the question of
the right to work; it simply expressed lofty ideals,
making no provision for their implementation in the
difficult daily life of the workers. He stressed the fact
that there was no point in proclaiming the right to
leisure, for example, if some men had no means of
exercising that right.
According to the representative of the Byelorussian
SSR, the Declaration was merely a proclamation of human
rights, and it contained no guarantee of the rights it
proclaimed. The right to national culture and democracy's
struggle against fascism and nazism were not mentioned.
The Declaration stated only traditional freedoms and
rights of the old liberal school, the representative of
Poland asserted. It failed to mention that the
counterpart of those rights was the duty of the
individual towards his neighbours, his family, his group
and his nation. It completely ignored the right of every
person to speak his own language and to have the
protection of his national culture ensured. He stated
that the Declaration, in reality, represented a step
backward if compared with the Declaration of the Rights
of Man and the Citizen, which had been produced during
the French Revolution; if compared with the Communist
Manifesto, which had declared human rights as binding and
necessary a hundred years ago; and if compared with the
principles which had inspired the October Revolution.
The representative of Yugoslavia felt that the
principles of human rights set out in the Declaration
lagged behind the social progress achieved in modern
times; and that they did not grand full juridical and
social protection to man. He considered that the radical
change in social conditions emphasized the necessity of
widening the traditional categories of human rights -
which generally included political and civil rights - and
of establishing a system of social rights, including the
collective ones for certain communities. He regarded the
Declaration as an instrument of international
codification rather than as an instrument which opened a
new and bright future for the individual in the vast
field of social rights.
The representatives of the United States, the United
Kingdom, India and Bolivia, among others, in opposing the
USSR draft resolution proposing that the adoption of the
draft Declaration be postponed also spoke against the
USSR amendments to the Declaration (see below).
Both the representatives of the United Kingdom and the
United States examined critically the USSR amendments. To
adopt these amendments, they argued, would limit the
universal scope of the Declaration.
While paying a tribute to the USSR delegation for the
tenacity with which it had defended its convictions, the
representative of the United States remarked that people
sometimes had to cooperate loyally with the majority even
when they disagreed with its views. The first Soviet
amendment, the United Sates representative said, dealt
with the question of minorities, and the Third Committee
had already decided that that question required further
study, and had recommended that it be referred, for that
purpose, to the Economic and Social Council and the
Commission on Human Rights. According to the
representative of the United States, it was clear from
the second USSR amendment that the aim was to guarantee
the rights of certain groups, and not the rights of
individuals, with which alone the Declaration was
concerned. The effect of the third USSR amendment would
be to restrict freedom of opinion and expression, argued
the representatives of the United States. That amendment,
she declared, proposed to set up standards which would
allow any State to deny freedom of opinion and expression
without violating that article. The fourth USSR
amendment, the United States representative explained,
proclaimed the obligations of the State, a conception
which the USSR delegation had tried to introduce into
practically every article of the Declaration. She
submitted that if that conception were adopted, the
entire character of the Declaration would be changed.
The representative of India maintained that the right
to hold different opinions was a sacred right and the
prerogative of every truly democratic people. She
declared that India, like other countries, would never
agree to restricting political rights in order to realize
social aims, however noble those aims might be.
According to the representative of Bolivia, two
opposing schools of thought had confronted each other in
the discussion on the Declaration. There had been, on the
one hand, the thesis upheld by the USSR, characterized by
the "desire to subordinate the individual to the
State", and, on the other hand, the thesis supported
by all the democratic countries, which was designed
"to make the individual capable of organizing a
State which, in turn, would respect the rights of the
individual". Referring to the objections formulated
by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR, the
representative of Bolivia stated that the democratic
peoples abhorred the thesis that the happiness of mankind
should be subordinated to the interests of the
all-powerful communist State.
The representative of the USSR repeated his objections
to the Declaration, and again stated that the Declaration
was directed against national sovereignty and was
therefore entirely inconsistent with the principles of
the United Nations. The independence and well-being of a
nation, he argued, depended on the principle of national
sovereignty, and this principle was the sole protector of
the smaller countries against the expansionist dreams of
more powerful States. He submitted a number of amendments
(A/784) to the draft Declaration
proposed by the Third Committee. These amendments,
similar to those presented in the Third Committee - and
which provided for, inter alia, ( 1 ) the extension to
the population of Non-Self-Governing Territories of the
provisions regarding the human and civic rights and
fundamental freedoms set out in the Declaration; (2) a
declaration that it was the inalienable right of every
person freely to express and disseminate democratic
views, and to combat fascism; ( 3 ) a declaration that
every citizen of any State must have the right, among
other rights, of access to any State or public office in
his country; and (4) the insertion of a new article
declaring that the rights and freedoms enumerated in the
draft Declaration should be guaranteed by national laws-
were all rejected by individual roll-call votes. The USSR
draft resolution (A/785/Rev.2),
calling upon the Assembly to refer the adoption of the
Declaration of Human Rights to the fourth regular
session, was also rejected, the vote being 6 in favour,
45 against, and 3 abstentions.
The President then put to vote a United Kingdom
amendment (A/778/Rev.1 ) to delete
the additional article of the draft Declaration (referred
to as article 3), which declared that the rights
proclaimed in the Declaration would also apply to any
person belonging to the population of Trust and
Non-Self-Governing Territories, and in its place to
substitute the following text as an additional paragraph
of the second article, regarding the application of the
Declaration:.
"Furthermore, no distinction shall
be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or
international status of the country or territory to which
a person belongs, whether it be independent, Trust,
Non-Self-Governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty."
The representative of the United Kingdom explained
that article 2 of the draft Declaration laid down that
every individual was entitled to the rights and freedoms
proclaimed in the Declaration, without distinction of any
kind. He argued that, if article 2 had any meaning and if
its terms were sufficiently precise and enumerated
sufficiently dearly the distinctions to be outlawed,
there was no reason to add an additional article (article
3) stipulating that those rights applied to the
inhabitants of the Trust and Non-Self-Governing
Territories.
The United Kingdom amendment was adopted by 29 votes
to 17, with 10 abstentions.
At the request of the representative of Poland, a
separate vote was then taken on each recital of the
preamble, and on each article.
The first recital of the preamble was adopted, with 2
abstentions.
The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh
recitals of the preamble were adopted unanimously.
Article 1 was adopted by 45 votes, with 9 abstentions.
The first paragraph of article 2 was adopted
unanimously.
The second paragraph of article 2 (United Kingdom
amendment) was adopted by 36 votes to 1, with 8
abstentions.
Article 3 was deleted; its content was covered by the
second paragraph of article 2 (United Kingdom amendment).
Article 4 to 13 were adopted unanimously.
Article 14 was adopted by 44 votes to 6, with 2
abstentions.
Article 15 to 18 were adopted unanimously.
Article 19 was adopted by 45 votes, with 4
abstentions.
Article 20 was adopted by 44 votes to 7, with 2
abstentions.
Article 21 to 26 were adopted unanimously.
Article 27 was adopted by 53 votes, with 3
abstentions.
Article 28 was adopted unanimously.
Article 29 was adopted by 47 votes, with 8
abstentions.
Article 30 and 31 were adopted unanimously.
A roll-call vote was then taken on the draft Universal
Declaration as a whole, including the United Kingdom
amendment previously adopted. The President stated that,
as a result of the deletion of article 3, the articles in
the final text of the Declaration would have to be
renumbered.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a whole,
was adopted by 48 votes, with 8 abstentions. The voting
was as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece,
Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,
Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey,
United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR,
Yugoslavia.
The President of the General Assembly said that the
adoption of that
"very important Declaration by a
big majority without any direct opposition was a
remarkable achievement...[that] the Declaration only
marked a first step since it was not a convention by
which States would be bound to carry out and give effect
to the fundamental human rights; nor would it provide for
enforcement; yet it was a step forward in a great
evolutionary process. It was the first occasion on which
the organized community of nations had made a declaration
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That document
was backed by the authority of the body of opinion of the
United Nations as a whole and millions of people, men,
women and children all over the world, would turn to it
for help guidance and inspiration."
National Coordinating Committee for
UDHR50.
Copyright © Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
All rights reserved.
Revised: April 24, 1998.
|