What do you think?
Rate this book
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 12/10/48 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the "Most Translated Document" in the world. It consists of thirty articles which outline the view of the General Assembly on the human rights guaranteed to all people. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, & the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights & its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants which complete the International Bill of Human Rights. In 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1948
77 people are currently reading
1012 people want to read
About the author
United Nations
8,602 books89 followersFrom http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.sh...
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.
The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peacebuilding, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds and programmes) affect our lives and make the world a better place. The Organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, gender equality and the advancement of women, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations.
The UN has 4 main purposes:
* To keep peace throughout the world;
* To develop friendly relations among nations;
* To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
* To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.
The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peacebuilding, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds and programmes) affect our lives and make the world a better place. The Organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, gender equality and the advancement of women, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations.
The UN has 4 main purposes:
* To keep peace throughout the world;
* To develop friendly relations among nations;
* To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
* To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
December 10, 2024
The United Nations got its start as the Second World War was ending; and the 50 signatories to the U.N. Charter that took effect in October of 1945 aspired to forge a new world order in which, it was hoped, future wars could be prevented. That goal still remains distant – at this time, according to Wikipedia, there are 60 separate armed conflicts, of varying scope and intensity, going on in different parts of the world today. But the U.N.’s mission of bringing nations together in peace still matters; and a review of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides useful insights into both how that mission began and how the organization has changed over the years.
The United Nations began as a shared initiative on the part of the victorious Allied Powers of World War II, and the meetings that got the organization underway took place in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco (a look-to-the-future city that itself could have made a fine home for the United Nations). Therefore, it is no surprise that some aspects of the language of the Universal Declaration have a decidedly Western, even American, sound to them. One hears Jeffersonian echoes in the Preamble’s assertion of the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” Similarly, Article 1 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
And just as Jefferson modified the language of John Locke, changing Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” so the Universal Declaration modifies Jefferson’s language, stating in Article 3 that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” That modification certainly seems understandable, considering how little security of person there had been in so much of the world during the long and terrible years of the Second World War.
There are plenty of parts of the Universal Declaration that are aspirational in nature; they represent an ideal to be hoped for, and certainly not a reality that has been achieved. When one looks, for example, at Article 4 (“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”), one reflects on the number of nations around the world today where, as reported by the International Anti-Slavery Society, human slavery in various forms is still practiced, in all its horror and cruelty. Estimates of the number of people still held in varying forms of slavery in the world today range from 21 million to 46 million.
Similarly, Article 5 against torture (“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) is, in a number of U.N. signatory nations, more honored in the breach than in the observance, as one can see from the number of countries around the world where torture is practiced with terrifying regularity. Amnesty International reported chronicling torture in 150 countries around the world between 1997 and 2001. For comparison purposes, there are 195 internationally recognized countries in the world today.
And Article 25, section 2 (“Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”), is an article that one can reflect upon with sadness, if not bitterness, considering the situation of women and children in so many parts of the world. We remember how Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan was shot by the Taliban for advocating for education for women; her perfectly sensible declaration that an educated woman will be not only a more productive member of society, but also a mother better able to care for her children, was lost upon the religious fanatics who wanted her voice silenced. And the civil war-wracked West African nations where children were given rifles and pressed into service as child soldiers provide a particularly sad example of when children have been regarded, not as people with rights and dignity who embody and constitute the human future, but rather as resources to be exploited for the selfish purposes of the cruel and unscrupulous.
In the post-World War II era, it must have seemed that the soaring language of the Universal Declaration would embody the beginnings of a new and better world, free of the irrational cruelties of the past. Yet Cold War tensions between the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the three permanent Western members of the Security Council (Great Britain, France, and the United States of America) on the other hand, quickly meant that, even in the early days of the U.N., some of the provisions of the Universal Declaration were rendered invalid.
Citizens of divided post-war Germany, for example, might have read Article 13, part 2 (“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”) with a decided sense of irony. As Cold War divisions ended plans for a reunification of Germany, the American-, British-, and French-administered sections of the country united as Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the democratically governed Federal Republic of Germany; the Soviet-ruled sector of Germany meanwhile became Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the singularly undemocratic “German Democratic Republic.”
By 1961, the East German authorities had militarized the Inner German Border and completed the Berlin Wall to prevent East German citizens from escaping to the West. Therefore, if you had told an East German between 1961 and 1989 that he or she had the right to leave the D.D.R., under Article 13, part 2 of the Universal Declaration, then that East German might well have responded by laughing in your face - as long as said East German was reasonably sure that there wasn’t a Stasi agent listening close by.
The Soviet Union and other non-democratic states may have signed on to the Universal Declaration, but leaders like Soviet dictator Josef Stalin had no intention of abiding by its principles. Stalin, in accordance with the state-mandated atheism of the U.S.S.R., had opposed any inclusion of religious-freedom language in the Universal Declaration, but had relented at U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s insistence. Still, the Soviets, and those who thought like them, made the most of Article 29, section 2 (“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”).
Into that one little article, Stalin and his ilk found, they could squeeze a great deal of state control of the individual, all the while blathering on about how wonderfully democratic they were being. Far-right dictators like those in Cold War-era Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Paraguay were just as swift as the Soviets to find excuses for oppressing their people in the name of “public order” and “morality.”
And, looking to more recent history, the Kurds of today, as the numerically largest group of people on Earth without a nation of their own, might look askance at Article 15’s blithe declaration that “Everyone has the right to a nationality”; it is a matter of record that the Kurds routinely face discrimination in all of the countries where they are a cultural minority – a brutal reality most dramatically demonstrated by Turkey’s 2019 invasion of Kurdish areas of northern Syria.
The U.N., heaven knows, is not a perfect organization. Its peace-keeping efforts, while well-intentioned, have sometimes been singularly ineffective. The organization has faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement of funds under various secretaries. And as former colonial possessions gained their independence down the years, and the membership of the U.N. General Assembly changed from one dominated by prosperous Western nations to one where smaller, poorer countries of the developing world predominated, the U.N. has sometimes gone in some unproductive and sometimes simply wrong directions.
A particularly egregious example of a wrong turn by a United Nations body was the infamous U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1975 that equated Zionism with racism. Surely one can sympathize with the situation of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and can work toward a political situation that will accommodate the rights, dignity, and identity of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, without stooping to language and ideas as grotesque as that.
And yet this re-reading of the Universal Declaration reminds me that the United Nations does have value, great value, as a place where nations can gather and talk in a forum that has been accepted as valid by virtually all the nations of the world. In 1983, when Soviet interceptor aircraft shot down a South Korean civilian airliner that had accidentally strayed into Soviet airspace, and when the Soviet government tried to lie about what their pilots had done, it was at the U.N. that the American ambassador to the U.N. played the tape that showed the whole world that the Soviets were lying.
More recently, when my wife and I traveled to Rwanda in the summer of 2016, the first thing we saw when we landed at the Kigali airport was a huge U.N. transport plane; and throughout our time in Rwanda, we saw how the U.N. is working, through a number of initiatives, to build lasting peace among the Rwandans whose nation was wracked by war and genocide in 1994.
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that the ideal of respect for the human rights of all, of a world where humankind can speak of war in the past tense, will always be an ideal worth striving toward.
The United Nations began as a shared initiative on the part of the victorious Allied Powers of World War II, and the meetings that got the organization underway took place in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco (a look-to-the-future city that itself could have made a fine home for the United Nations). Therefore, it is no surprise that some aspects of the language of the Universal Declaration have a decidedly Western, even American, sound to them. One hears Jeffersonian echoes in the Preamble’s assertion of the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” Similarly, Article 1 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
And just as Jefferson modified the language of John Locke, changing Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” so the Universal Declaration modifies Jefferson’s language, stating in Article 3 that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” That modification certainly seems understandable, considering how little security of person there had been in so much of the world during the long and terrible years of the Second World War.
There are plenty of parts of the Universal Declaration that are aspirational in nature; they represent an ideal to be hoped for, and certainly not a reality that has been achieved. When one looks, for example, at Article 4 (“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”), one reflects on the number of nations around the world today where, as reported by the International Anti-Slavery Society, human slavery in various forms is still practiced, in all its horror and cruelty. Estimates of the number of people still held in varying forms of slavery in the world today range from 21 million to 46 million.
Similarly, Article 5 against torture (“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) is, in a number of U.N. signatory nations, more honored in the breach than in the observance, as one can see from the number of countries around the world where torture is practiced with terrifying regularity. Amnesty International reported chronicling torture in 150 countries around the world between 1997 and 2001. For comparison purposes, there are 195 internationally recognized countries in the world today.
And Article 25, section 2 (“Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”), is an article that one can reflect upon with sadness, if not bitterness, considering the situation of women and children in so many parts of the world. We remember how Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan was shot by the Taliban for advocating for education for women; her perfectly sensible declaration that an educated woman will be not only a more productive member of society, but also a mother better able to care for her children, was lost upon the religious fanatics who wanted her voice silenced. And the civil war-wracked West African nations where children were given rifles and pressed into service as child soldiers provide a particularly sad example of when children have been regarded, not as people with rights and dignity who embody and constitute the human future, but rather as resources to be exploited for the selfish purposes of the cruel and unscrupulous.
In the post-World War II era, it must have seemed that the soaring language of the Universal Declaration would embody the beginnings of a new and better world, free of the irrational cruelties of the past. Yet Cold War tensions between the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the three permanent Western members of the Security Council (Great Britain, France, and the United States of America) on the other hand, quickly meant that, even in the early days of the U.N., some of the provisions of the Universal Declaration were rendered invalid.
Citizens of divided post-war Germany, for example, might have read Article 13, part 2 (“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”) with a decided sense of irony. As Cold War divisions ended plans for a reunification of Germany, the American-, British-, and French-administered sections of the country united as Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the democratically governed Federal Republic of Germany; the Soviet-ruled sector of Germany meanwhile became Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the singularly undemocratic “German Democratic Republic.”
By 1961, the East German authorities had militarized the Inner German Border and completed the Berlin Wall to prevent East German citizens from escaping to the West. Therefore, if you had told an East German between 1961 and 1989 that he or she had the right to leave the D.D.R., under Article 13, part 2 of the Universal Declaration, then that East German might well have responded by laughing in your face - as long as said East German was reasonably sure that there wasn’t a Stasi agent listening close by.
The Soviet Union and other non-democratic states may have signed on to the Universal Declaration, but leaders like Soviet dictator Josef Stalin had no intention of abiding by its principles. Stalin, in accordance with the state-mandated atheism of the U.S.S.R., had opposed any inclusion of religious-freedom language in the Universal Declaration, but had relented at U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s insistence. Still, the Soviets, and those who thought like them, made the most of Article 29, section 2 (“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”).
Into that one little article, Stalin and his ilk found, they could squeeze a great deal of state control of the individual, all the while blathering on about how wonderfully democratic they were being. Far-right dictators like those in Cold War-era Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Paraguay were just as swift as the Soviets to find excuses for oppressing their people in the name of “public order” and “morality.”
And, looking to more recent history, the Kurds of today, as the numerically largest group of people on Earth without a nation of their own, might look askance at Article 15’s blithe declaration that “Everyone has the right to a nationality”; it is a matter of record that the Kurds routinely face discrimination in all of the countries where they are a cultural minority – a brutal reality most dramatically demonstrated by Turkey’s 2019 invasion of Kurdish areas of northern Syria.
The U.N., heaven knows, is not a perfect organization. Its peace-keeping efforts, while well-intentioned, have sometimes been singularly ineffective. The organization has faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement of funds under various secretaries. And as former colonial possessions gained their independence down the years, and the membership of the U.N. General Assembly changed from one dominated by prosperous Western nations to one where smaller, poorer countries of the developing world predominated, the U.N. has sometimes gone in some unproductive and sometimes simply wrong directions.
A particularly egregious example of a wrong turn by a United Nations body was the infamous U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1975 that equated Zionism with racism. Surely one can sympathize with the situation of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and can work toward a political situation that will accommodate the rights, dignity, and identity of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, without stooping to language and ideas as grotesque as that.
And yet this re-reading of the Universal Declaration reminds me that the United Nations does have value, great value, as a place where nations can gather and talk in a forum that has been accepted as valid by virtually all the nations of the world. In 1983, when Soviet interceptor aircraft shot down a South Korean civilian airliner that had accidentally strayed into Soviet airspace, and when the Soviet government tried to lie about what their pilots had done, it was at the U.N. that the American ambassador to the U.N. played the tape that showed the whole world that the Soviets were lying.
More recently, when my wife and I traveled to Rwanda in the summer of 2016, the first thing we saw when we landed at the Kigali airport was a huge U.N. transport plane; and throughout our time in Rwanda, we saw how the U.N. is working, through a number of initiatives, to build lasting peace among the Rwandans whose nation was wracked by war and genocide in 1994.
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that the ideal of respect for the human rights of all, of a world where humankind can speak of war in the past tense, will always be an ideal worth striving toward.
December 30, 2023
In my opinion there is not a country on the planet that does not violate one or more of the articles in this historical declaration, many of them on a regular basis. It reminds us of the painful truth that the road to hell is paved with good intentions
December 11, 2024
UN universal declaration of human rights, 8 pages, 1948.
Online here as a web page (in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Russian, or Mandarin):
www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-h...
or as a pdf:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Document...
or in other languages (500 languages!): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/S...
Aspirational. Certainly not implemented in the U.S.
A couple concerns: the planks about right to property and right to change nationality will certainly be cited by the plundering class to shield their wealth. (Yes, you should be free to change nationality—but when you do you should be subject to an estate tax—going and coming. Only for extreme wealth; progressive.)
Actually, the "right to own property," Art. 17, goes far to nullify /all/ other rights. Either a foreign engineering company has a right to acquire the water of a country as its exclusive property, or people have the right to water. Either foreign owners of land have a right to take the agricultural produce of that land as their property, and ship it abroad while local people die of famine, or people have a right to life. Either a mining company has a right to make use of the minerals to which it has acquired property title, and permanently transform a pristine environment into a toxic waste dump, or people have a right to be free from pollution. Either company owners have a right to run their company as they see fit, or people have rights to a decent living, decent conditions, safety and health. Either fuel owners have a right to burn, or people have a right to breathe clean air in an unbroken climate.
You can't have both. The extent that wealth has rights is the extent people lack rights.
The unstated untruth behind the wording is that only governments deprive people of rights. The truth is, we need governments to protect us from the abuses of the owning class.
Note that the “equal pay for equal work” plank is /not/ one unions and worker co-ops adopt. Instead unionists accept that workers outside the bargaining unit—and junior members—get less for the same work, senior members keep getting more. This is ultimately self-defeating, as it gives a powerful incentive to take work away from the bargaining unit, divide and conquer. Only by insisting on the value of the /work/, whoever does it, could workers preserve wages long term. See Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism, Zak Cope.
Art. 24, a right to paid time off work, presupposes that everyone is a wage slave to a large corporation. Not so, and not desirable. There should be sufficient anti-monopoly law and enforcement that a mom-and-pop business can thrive and survive.
This is quite the Rosetta Stone, one document in 500 languages.
_Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World,_ by Samuel Moyn, goodreads.com/book/show/36358131-not-... shows that "human rights" seeks only minimum survivability--abandons the socialist quest for equality--permitting the galloping toward a lords-and-serfs world we've seen since the mid-1970s. Also _The Morals of the Market: Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism_, by Jessica Whyte: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And in any event, no one took the calls for human rights seriously. U.S. blamed Communist countries for abuses, while U.S. funded death squads throughout the global South to enforce corporate power.
Here's Heather Cox Richarson's post about the document: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack...
Online here as a web page (in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Russian, or Mandarin):
www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-h...
or as a pdf:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Document...
or in other languages (500 languages!): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/S...
Aspirational. Certainly not implemented in the U.S.
A couple concerns: the planks about right to property and right to change nationality will certainly be cited by the plundering class to shield their wealth. (Yes, you should be free to change nationality—but when you do you should be subject to an estate tax—going and coming. Only for extreme wealth; progressive.)
Actually, the "right to own property," Art. 17, goes far to nullify /all/ other rights. Either a foreign engineering company has a right to acquire the water of a country as its exclusive property, or people have the right to water. Either foreign owners of land have a right to take the agricultural produce of that land as their property, and ship it abroad while local people die of famine, or people have a right to life. Either a mining company has a right to make use of the minerals to which it has acquired property title, and permanently transform a pristine environment into a toxic waste dump, or people have a right to be free from pollution. Either company owners have a right to run their company as they see fit, or people have rights to a decent living, decent conditions, safety and health. Either fuel owners have a right to burn, or people have a right to breathe clean air in an unbroken climate.
You can't have both. The extent that wealth has rights is the extent people lack rights.
The unstated untruth behind the wording is that only governments deprive people of rights. The truth is, we need governments to protect us from the abuses of the owning class.
Note that the “equal pay for equal work” plank is /not/ one unions and worker co-ops adopt. Instead unionists accept that workers outside the bargaining unit—and junior members—get less for the same work, senior members keep getting more. This is ultimately self-defeating, as it gives a powerful incentive to take work away from the bargaining unit, divide and conquer. Only by insisting on the value of the /work/, whoever does it, could workers preserve wages long term. See Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism, Zak Cope.
Art. 24, a right to paid time off work, presupposes that everyone is a wage slave to a large corporation. Not so, and not desirable. There should be sufficient anti-monopoly law and enforcement that a mom-and-pop business can thrive and survive.
This is quite the Rosetta Stone, one document in 500 languages.
_Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World,_ by Samuel Moyn, goodreads.com/book/show/36358131-not-... shows that "human rights" seeks only minimum survivability--abandons the socialist quest for equality--permitting the galloping toward a lords-and-serfs world we've seen since the mid-1970s. Also _The Morals of the Market: Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism_, by Jessica Whyte: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And in any event, no one took the calls for human rights seriously. U.S. blamed Communist countries for abuses, while U.S. funded death squads throughout the global South to enforce corporate power.
Here's Heather Cox Richarson's post about the document: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack...
March 20, 2015
In my chosen quotes.
It is a quirk that Dear M gained his Fred Pris because the UN peacekeepers won the award. He was in Cyprus at the time. The certificate hangs in the hall and attracts quite a few tongue-in-cheek comments.
It is a quirk that Dear M gained his Fred Pris because the UN peacekeepers won the award. He was in Cyprus at the time. The certificate hangs in the hall and attracts quite a few tongue-in-cheek comments.
August 5, 2016
Of course, this is a classic now and many people refer to this document when they identify human rights violations. It is a "must read." But there are some troubling aspects to this document, especially because it is so widely referenced.
First, it is truly a declaration. That would be fine if it explained its reasoning and contained its scope. Unfortunately, it contradicts itself without explanation and the reader is left wondering how these declarations must be reconciled. For example, Article 25 "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" cannot be achieved unless a centralized entity practically contradicts Article 17: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." I say practically because achieving the former does not happen without distribution of wealth. Note that there is no reference to voluntary charity. It sounds benevolent, but it's very heavy-handed.
Second, the declaration exceeds its scope by such a wide margin that it may be disregarded by other than Western cultures. For example, I agree that education is extremely valuable, but my view is largely due to my Western upbringing and middle-class experience. Without a corresponding apologetic, these declarations become circular.
I encourage people to read this, if only to discover the contradictions and omissions that make it unworthy of the authority it assumes.
First, it is truly a declaration. That would be fine if it explained its reasoning and contained its scope. Unfortunately, it contradicts itself without explanation and the reader is left wondering how these declarations must be reconciled. For example, Article 25 "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" cannot be achieved unless a centralized entity practically contradicts Article 17: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." I say practically because achieving the former does not happen without distribution of wealth. Note that there is no reference to voluntary charity. It sounds benevolent, but it's very heavy-handed.
Second, the declaration exceeds its scope by such a wide margin that it may be disregarded by other than Western cultures. For example, I agree that education is extremely valuable, but my view is largely due to my Western upbringing and middle-class experience. Without a corresponding apologetic, these declarations become circular.
I encourage people to read this, if only to discover the contradictions and omissions that make it unworthy of the authority it assumes.
January 14, 2016
20/20
Un texte primordial rendu plus vivant et remis au goût du jour par ces illustrations magnifiques et touchantes. Un ouvrage à se procurer absolument pour mieux connaître ces droits fondamentaux auxquels chaque être humain est lié par sa condition même d’être humain.
Ma chronique : https://myprettybooks.wordpress.com/2...
Un texte primordial rendu plus vivant et remis au goût du jour par ces illustrations magnifiques et touchantes. Un ouvrage à se procurer absolument pour mieux connaître ces droits fondamentaux auxquels chaque être humain est lié par sa condition même d’être humain.
Ma chronique : https://myprettybooks.wordpress.com/2...
Read
December 16, 2018Testo del 10 dicembre 1948 sempre attuale, anche 70 anni dopo. L'agilissimo volumetto ha la prefazione di Liliana Segre, testimone di una gravissima privazione dei diritti umani, e questa ci sta, mentre due scritti di Simone Weil - "Professione di fede" e "L'uomo e il sacro" - sono appiccicati alquanto discutibilmente.
December 31, 2024
La Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Umani, spesso criticata, infamata e nel peggiore dei casi, ignorata, rappresenta un importante traguardo nell'avanzata degli ideali più virtuosi del genere umano. I cosiddetti detrattori questo dovrebbero pensare: che quel 10 dicembre 1948 si promulgava qualcosa che di pretesa importanza, non aveva precedenti, era la prima volta nella storia che si promulgava qualcosa del genere, una "costituzione dell'umanità", uno dei primi grandi tentativi nella storia dove si è cercato di stabilire, a livello internazionale, la strada verso la fratellanza e la giustizia. Il futuro e incerto ma spazioso, nulla toglie la possibilità di fare di meglio, di scrivere di meglio, e il fatto che l'attuale Dichiarazione venga impugnata da molte persone, organizzazioni e legislatori nel mondo, è incoraggiante.
September 17, 2018
A short document summarising the Holy Grail of the international community. It reeks of wishful thinking and rosy glasses but I hope I am not right and one day all these statements will become a reality.
Must to read to everyone, find it here: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documen...
Must to read to everyone, find it here: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documen...
June 6, 2023
Pidevad struktuurikordused mõjuvad manavalt, loitsivalt ja seeläbi kütkestavalt, aidates kaasa ratsionaalse mõtlemisvõime tuimestamisele. Teoloogiliselt, filosoofiliset ja loogiliselt aga küllaltki argumenteerimata, ebaratsionaalne, naiivne ja pretentsioonikas teos, mille loomiseks plagieeritud materjalid on läänekesksed ja koloniseerivad. Loob väga hea sissejuhatuse demokraatliku mõtteviisi alateadvusesse, kus suplevad rahuigatsus, õnneutoopia ning jumalik, lunastav Õiglus.
October 16, 2008
Update: 12 November 2008
This December 10th marks the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a very fine document praised by the Vatican and most of the world's nations. However, this year there is a push to include abortion as a fundamental right in the U.N. Declaration, a move which if passed, will cause the Catholic Church to withdraw its support from this otherwise fine document.
Abortion is not a human right, but rather a fundamental violation of the most basic human right, the right to Life. What is more, this new provision would violate an essential tenet of Catholic social teaching: "Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also." (Compendium of Social Doctrine, #166)
If you visit this website and sign the electronic petition it will be delivered to the United Nations requesting they maintain the Declaration of Human Rights in its integrity and reject the motion to include abortion as part of the declaration. The 'Pro-Choice' movement is well-organized, with huge financial resources to draw on. The Pro-Life movement is larger but not so well-organized and poorly funded; it relies on word of mouth to spread. Please feel free to copy and paste this info or visit my blog for more information about this.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
All my life I've been hearing about human rights violations; I suppose I should have known such a document existed. I must have heard of it but wasn't listening...?
According to the Guinness Book of Records the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is the "Most Translated Document" in the world. The UDHR is a direct result of the horrendous experiences of human oppression during the Second World War; it represents the first formal world-wide written expression of rights applicable to all human beings. Eleanor Roosevelt considered the Universal Declaration her life's greatest accomplishment.
It is a simple document consisting of a short preamble and a mere thirty articles, most of which seem so obvious they hardly seem worth recording, but it's just because they haven't been so regarded as 'obvious' they have needed recording.
Something everyone should read once in his/her life.
There have also been national and regional variations/affirmations of the original declaration including a European Convention on Human Rights in Rome in November of 1950. Fifty years later, Pope John Paul II gave this address to commemorate that historic occasion: ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
This December 10th marks the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a very fine document praised by the Vatican and most of the world's nations. However, this year there is a push to include abortion as a fundamental right in the U.N. Declaration, a move which if passed, will cause the Catholic Church to withdraw its support from this otherwise fine document.
Abortion is not a human right, but rather a fundamental violation of the most basic human right, the right to Life. What is more, this new provision would violate an essential tenet of Catholic social teaching: "Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also." (Compendium of Social Doctrine, #166)
If you visit this website and sign the electronic petition it will be delivered to the United Nations requesting they maintain the Declaration of Human Rights in its integrity and reject the motion to include abortion as part of the declaration. The 'Pro-Choice' movement is well-organized, with huge financial resources to draw on. The Pro-Life movement is larger but not so well-organized and poorly funded; it relies on word of mouth to spread. Please feel free to copy and paste this info or visit my blog for more information about this.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
All my life I've been hearing about human rights violations; I suppose I should have known such a document existed. I must have heard of it but wasn't listening...?
According to the Guinness Book of Records the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is the "Most Translated Document" in the world. The UDHR is a direct result of the horrendous experiences of human oppression during the Second World War; it represents the first formal world-wide written expression of rights applicable to all human beings. Eleanor Roosevelt considered the Universal Declaration her life's greatest accomplishment.
It is a simple document consisting of a short preamble and a mere thirty articles, most of which seem so obvious they hardly seem worth recording, but it's just because they haven't been so regarded as 'obvious' they have needed recording.
Something everyone should read once in his/her life.
There have also been national and regional variations/affirmations of the original declaration including a European Convention on Human Rights in Rome in November of 1950. Fifty years later, Pope John Paul II gave this address to commemorate that historic occasion: ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
July 11, 2019
لا تسأل عن الحقوق التي لم تطبقها الحكومات العربية، سل عن ما طبقته! مع أن هذه الحكومات -عند التحقيق- حكومات علمانية، من المفترض أن تلتزم بهذا الميثاق الذي وقعت عليه.
حقوق الإنسان بحسب الأمم المتحدة 30 حقًا، وكل حق غالبًا لا يتجاوز بضعة أسطر، وقد روعي الأسلوب السهل، فالكتيب يمكن إنهائه في جلسة واحدة.
وما يميز هذه النسخة وجود رسومات بالألوان الأبيض والأسود والأحمر، تعبر عن كل حق من الحقوق المبنية بحسب فهمي على الليبرالية الحداثية Modern Liberalism التي تختلف عن الليبرالية الكلاسيكية Classical Liberalism في مستوى التدخل الحكومي، إذ الأخيرة حصرت التدخل الحكومي في حفظ الأمن، والعقوبات، وتنظيم العقود.
ولكي تفهم هذا الميثاق بصورة أفضل فعليك أن تقرأ عن الليبرالية وتطورها في كتاب مدخل إلى الأيديولوجيات السياسية
وأنصح بالنسخة الإنجليزية Political Ideologies: An Introduction
حقوق الإنسان بحسب الأمم المتحدة 30 حقًا، وكل حق غالبًا لا يتجاوز بضعة أسطر، وقد روعي الأسلوب السهل، فالكتيب يمكن إنهائه في جلسة واحدة.
وما يميز هذه النسخة وجود رسومات بالألوان الأبيض والأسود والأحمر، تعبر عن كل حق من الحقوق المبنية بحسب فهمي على الليبرالية الحداثية Modern Liberalism التي تختلف عن الليبرالية الكلاسيكية Classical Liberalism في مستوى التدخل الحكومي، إذ الأخيرة حصرت التدخل الحكومي في حفظ الأمن، والعقوبات، وتنظيم العقود.
ولكي تفهم هذا الميثاق بصورة أفضل فعليك أن تقرأ عن الليبرالية وتطورها في كتاب مدخل إلى الأيديولوجيات السياسية
وأنصح بالنسخة الإنجليزية Political Ideologies: An Introduction
February 16, 2015
Groundbreaking stuff in its time, and surprisingly barely dated 60 years on, although a couple of the clauses jarred with me. A laudable document but sadly still not put into practice in too many countries.
July 27, 2024
29 статья перечёркивает собой все остальные. Как просто поставить вне закона того, кого перед этим ты признал нарушителем общественного порядка и(или) ценностей демократии.
July 8, 2015
words....
March 6, 2019
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
"Human beings shall enjoy the freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear... that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
The Declaration of Human Rights is an important document that is founded under the values of freedom, justice and global peace. It was a big leap in regard to Global Human rights. However, it depicts heavily western values as "Global values".
Article 15
2." No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
Unfortunately, this matter is not a reality... "Today, at least 10 million people around the world are denied a nationality" - Source: https://www.unhcr.org/stateless-peopl...
Article 16
2. " Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. "
This is mainly a western standpoint. This point demands western values over the cultural relativism of some countries. E.g: intending spouses chosen by their family members in India.
Article 17
2. "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. "
No one is arbitrarily deprived of his property (unless one fully cooperates with the banking/government system, thieves of other kind are just minor rivals of the former ones).
Article 18
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
Are these values reality? Freedom of thought does really exist worldwide? Even in the western world? Long walk ahead concerning this matter...
Article 23
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work
What about those who work more hours for equal work? Don't they deserve a higher payment compared to those who work fewer hours and to those who are less productive? It should be more specific, though.
" Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end, that every individual and every organ of society" - That's one of the flaws within the declaration. The declaration was mainly based upon western values that basically ignores the moral values of the rest of the world. It would be a global constitution if other values were approved, and not mainly western values. Knowing our rights is fundamental for our own thrive. Our rights must be GLOBAL, specific, and impartial.
Nevertheless, there's still a long way for a reasonable harmony between countries in a Human range, and for that reason, change must be made individually for a collective scope.
FULL TEXT HERE: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documen...
"Human beings shall enjoy the freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear... that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
The Declaration of Human Rights is an important document that is founded under the values of freedom, justice and global peace. It was a big leap in regard to Global Human rights. However, it depicts heavily western values as "Global values".
Article 15
2." No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
Unfortunately, this matter is not a reality... "Today, at least 10 million people around the world are denied a nationality" - Source: https://www.unhcr.org/stateless-peopl...
Article 16
2. " Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. "
This is mainly a western standpoint. This point demands western values over the cultural relativism of some countries. E.g: intending spouses chosen by their family members in India.
Article 17
2. "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. "
No one is arbitrarily deprived of his property (unless one fully cooperates with the banking/government system, thieves of other kind are just minor rivals of the former ones).
Article 18
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
Are these values reality? Freedom of thought does really exist worldwide? Even in the western world? Long walk ahead concerning this matter...
Article 23
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work
What about those who work more hours for equal work? Don't they deserve a higher payment compared to those who work fewer hours and to those who are less productive? It should be more specific, though.
" Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end, that every individual and every organ of society" - That's one of the flaws within the declaration. The declaration was mainly based upon western values that basically ignores the moral values of the rest of the world. It would be a global constitution if other values were approved, and not mainly western values. Knowing our rights is fundamental for our own thrive. Our rights must be GLOBAL, specific, and impartial.
Nevertheless, there's still a long way for a reasonable harmony between countries in a Human range, and for that reason, change must be made individually for a collective scope.
FULL TEXT HERE: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documen...
September 29, 2018
I tell you, I had those fucks eatin out of my hand. Pete was warning me on the flight over that I shouldnt be so "separapist", whatever that means! I told him to shut up, I knew what I was doing. Pete was making it sound like this would be a tougher crowd than those sticks in the mud at the inauguration, but they loved me. Watch those videos, you can hear how inspired they are. They lived in darkness till I came around. I'm really brightening up the world. I told them how it fuckin was: I done more these last two years than any President in the goddamn history books, and they knew I was tellin the truth. Very moving. The lamestream media would have you believe I'm really screwing things up over here, them and that asslicker Bob Woodward, but when I said my piece to the United Peoples they knew everything was gonna be alright over here. Next time I go I'm gonna have Pete pass around a hat to get that wall project going. EXCITING!
September 3, 2018
I want to recommend people to read this declaration. This is important to know because it talks about basic human rights that everyone needs. By growing awareness on this topic, people will be able to know what actions they should or should not take about human rights. Through those actions, our society will be a better place. My class had a discussion about the human right violation and one student shared his experience about a human right violation that he has seen in his country. We found the lesson of reading the document very valuable and more people have to try this. Consequently, I recommend more people to read this document.
September 3, 2018
I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I think that this declaration is good for understand our human rights so I want to people to read this. This is important because this declaration is showing all of the human rights and it explains a lot. During the class one of my classmate said he had seen child labor practices in his country. We found the lesson of reading the document very valuable and more people have to try this declaration. So that this basic rule will protected. Because of this, I think that a lot of people should read this document.
September 24, 2019
A great book to use in classrooms to discuss the topic of individuals rights and the ideas of consent, individuality and freedom.
The book itself is directly from the declaration, so may need some assistance to help children fully understand. But the illustrations and book itself would act as a perfect physical talking point for topics, and can very easily be further explained or questioned with students.
The book itself is directly from the declaration, so may need some assistance to help children fully understand. But the illustrations and book itself would act as a perfect physical talking point for topics, and can very easily be further explained or questioned with students.
April 1, 2019
Now how does one rate this?
April 8, 2020
I wonder why we weren't taught this in school.
June 13, 2020
Wonderful but it needs updating and more specification in many places.
Read
April 22, 2021Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
Read
May 1, 2023هذا شيخي فأروني شيخكم
June 14, 2023
Très jolies illustrations de la DDDHC.
La relire m’a permis de voir à quel point on ne l’a respectait pas…
La relire m’a permis de voir à quel point on ne l’a respectait pas…
June 30, 2025
Nunca bastante.
March 14, 2022
Must read and live by, @Vladimir Putin
Read
January 1, 2009Of course you support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You probably know some of them. “All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights”: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person”: "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." You’ve heard these, haven’t you, in one form or another? But do you know all thirty articles? Are you able to cite them and support them when you see, or hear of them being ignored? To celebrate the 60th anniversary of the declaration, proclaimed in December 1948, Allen & Unwin, in association with Amnesty International, has produced a lovely, hardcover, pocket sized illustrated version, now published in the US by MacAdam/Cage.
After the official preamble, each of the articles are set out on their own page with a facing illustration. Michel Streich’s illustrations are simple, in dark red, back and white, and are abstract enough to convey the full meaning of the words without leading the reader. The paper is thick matt, and it includes a nice grey ribbon bookmark, making this book attractive enough for a gift.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn’t a legally binding document, nor is it a treaty, but it provides the basis for many of the treaties and laws that we follow today, and is certainly a clear basis for a sectarian morality that can be referred to regardless of background or affiliation. That the focus of these rights is the inherent dignity of mankind, rather than an arbitrary dictation by external agency or “book”, makes them particularly valuable. Streich’s imagery will stay with you and provide a good memory jog.
The articles themselves are timeless, and worthy of committing to memory. Most of the principles here have been ignored or flouted by just about every nation at some time, and some nations continue to do so overtly and shamelessly, so the repetition of these succinct and powerful words is important. It’s only by continuing to stress the inherent and “inalienable” rights of the “human family” that we can begin to move towards some semblance of freedom and peace in the world. Pie in the sky maybe. But it certainly can’t hurt to teach these to our children, and individually live by them. This simple, but pretty book will appeal to children and adults alike, and makes it easy to visualize and indeed cite the articles regularly, and certainly when you see them being abused.
Though it’s only small, this book packs a powerful punch in terms of its striking prose which is no less relevant today than it was 60 years ago, its apt illustrations, and its applicability to the way we choose to live our lives.
After the official preamble, each of the articles are set out on their own page with a facing illustration. Michel Streich’s illustrations are simple, in dark red, back and white, and are abstract enough to convey the full meaning of the words without leading the reader. The paper is thick matt, and it includes a nice grey ribbon bookmark, making this book attractive enough for a gift.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn’t a legally binding document, nor is it a treaty, but it provides the basis for many of the treaties and laws that we follow today, and is certainly a clear basis for a sectarian morality that can be referred to regardless of background or affiliation. That the focus of these rights is the inherent dignity of mankind, rather than an arbitrary dictation by external agency or “book”, makes them particularly valuable. Streich’s imagery will stay with you and provide a good memory jog.
The articles themselves are timeless, and worthy of committing to memory. Most of the principles here have been ignored or flouted by just about every nation at some time, and some nations continue to do so overtly and shamelessly, so the repetition of these succinct and powerful words is important. It’s only by continuing to stress the inherent and “inalienable” rights of the “human family” that we can begin to move towards some semblance of freedom and peace in the world. Pie in the sky maybe. But it certainly can’t hurt to teach these to our children, and individually live by them. This simple, but pretty book will appeal to children and adults alike, and makes it easy to visualize and indeed cite the articles regularly, and certainly when you see them being abused.
Though it’s only small, this book packs a powerful punch in terms of its striking prose which is no less relevant today than it was 60 years ago, its apt illustrations, and its applicability to the way we choose to live our lives.
August 1, 2015
My favourite points:
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."
There are some really beautiful things set up in this declaration. I highly recommend you read it. My country has agreed to it, and I fully intend to hold them to it. It's really rather inspiring.
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."
There are some really beautiful things set up in this declaration. I highly recommend you read it. My country has agreed to it, and I fully intend to hold them to it. It's really rather inspiring.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews