Monday, November 24, 2008
The UNDHR @ 60
What do you imagine were the debates and dialogues that took place as people across the world first considered the notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How have those conversations changed today? Are there other ways to outline the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings across the globe without the articulation of universal rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
I would imagine that it was difficult to try to decide on rights that could be seen by everyone as correct. For the nations that were in charge of creating these rights, it was their responsibility not too add too many of their own ideals that were not necessarily human rights. I would guess that they would try to make the rights simple, clear and with greatest coverage.
We have seen that in the intervention for human rights that we have in cases exacerbated situations, by imposing what we consider to help maintain such rights. Although most agree that violence against certain groups is a violation of human rights, we do not always have the best solutions to stop the violence. Cultural conflicts and divided countries are complex and delicate situations that can easily be made worse. I think that the articulation of of human rights is the easiest way to make it clear to all. Not having the rights written out would lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding. And articulating human rights does not mean that they cannot be later changed or reinterpreted.
I think the debates and dialogues when people first considered the UNDHR would be long and been many different opinions. Everyone across the world would have different ways of thinking and moral compasses to decided what universal Human rights should be. I think the goal should be creating rights that were seen as fair for everyone. People probably would have different views now because of how the world has changed and some of the events that have occurred since then. I think then they would want to make the human rights declaration more broad and general because this was one of the first encounters of this. Now I would think they might have tried to have them more detailed since there have been several occurrences of humanity crimes.
I don't think there are any other ways to outline the minimum standards for the treatment of human being across the globe. If there is nothing written in stone then I don't think people would really follow the "rules". As we have seen, some governments don't even follow them now even if they are written down. If they weren't written situations would be a lot worst and there would probably more crimes against humanity.
I imagine that most of the debates and dialogues that took place concerning a UNDHR were centered around the issue of what basic human rights everyone could expect. The different nations would have had different ideas of what they considered to be human rights. Also, they would have had to be careful that the nations in charge didn't make the UNDHR to suit only their own needs. They would have to make it so that all could agree and that it covered as wide a range as possible of human rights. If not everyone agreed then there would be no incentive to follow the minimum standards of human treatment. The conversations today have probably become more specific because there have been more genocides from which to specify what human rights should be expected. Before, they were probably still unsure about what human rights could be expected and what was considered to be a crime against humanity. I do not think that there is any other way to outline the minimum standards of human treatment without being articulated. At least now they are written down so that everybody knows what they are. Also, it provides a reference point for those trying to determine if human rights are being violated in some part of the world.
I think that one major point of debate or conversation for considering a Universal Declaration of Human Rights would have been to meet the demands of all countries in the UN. The different countries would have had a variety of human rights that they practiced in their country. And so they would want those rights to be included in the UNDHR. Therefore finalizing the Declaration so as to please all nations would have been a difficult task. That might have led to long talks. But I think that such dialogues have changed a lot today. At that time, there was a war that had just ended, so people had a sense of revenge and anger in them. Today, fortunately there isn't a world war going on. So most countries are in good terms with eachother. Hence these conversations today would be much easier.
Yet, I don't think there are alternative ways to outline the standards for the treatment of human beings. There have to be human rights and we have those available to us since the 1940's. Since they have been articulated and we have accepted them, there isn't a question of other outlines.
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was sent out around the world, I think some people accepted it gratefully. People thought that the world was taking a giant leap to improve human rights. I am sure in some countries people celebrated with joy because they were finally being recognized. There are others, undoubtedly, that did not like this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For one those people probably own slaves and torture them for fun. Now it is a crime world wide to have slaves and it is against the human rights declaration. Those conversations about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have changed greatly today. For one the entire world population likes this declaration. Only a small populace, very small, hate this declaration. People may speak of changing the declaration a little, or adding in new rights people should always have. Everyone needs to be treated the same way, no one is the same. There is no superior race in this world. The government needs to treat people equally. If a government treats people the same and everyone in that country is content then there is no need of a declaration of human rights. The leaders of a country are the focus point. If the leaders are fair and accepting of all citizens within the country then things are excellent. The only thing is, if the leaders of a country are unfair and hate all races or a certain race then someone needs to implement a declaration of human rights in that country.
I would think it would be hard to decide on a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The individual nations would not be able to allow their own ideals, and morals to be put into the rights. Nations probably debated about how to make the UNDHR fit for all circumstances and how to make it clear for everyone to follow.
Those conversations have changed in today's world because there are more conflicts between nations. Now the UNDHR outlines how to treat people in the case of an atrocity. It is easier to accept and to apply the UNDHR after so many genocides and conflicts because they have set a precedence on which rights people have. It is possible to outline the minumum standards for treatment without the UNDHR, but it is not a guarranty that all nations would agree. It would be possible to have a verbal agreement, but as is always the case, a written agreement is better.
I imagine that the debates over a Universal Declaration of Human RIghts across world might have been very heated. There probabbly might have been different perspectives over how people are judged if basic human rights are denied. Also, there were probably countries who thought of the notion of a unviersal declaration has unnecessary, since each country would not admit that they have dehumanized their citizenry in certain respects. Today, I believe that most of the world has come to accept the declaration, yet it is difficult to make sure each country is ensuring that each person is not denied basic human rights. Perhaps some other ways to ensure that the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings can be ensured is the have more well to do countries set up humanitatrian efforts in developing countries to make sure they are able to have jobs that don't the degradation of a person, but that a person can work with dignity. Also,humanitarians can also try to help build houses and provide people with same natural resources to live. Any such humanitarian efforts can help be the starting stage of ensuring that all people are not denied the rights the UNDHR states.
A Universal Declaration of Human Rights would have been very heavily debated when it was first considered. I believe one of the main questions was what should be included on the Universal Declaration such that it specifically states human rights without contradicting the culture, religion, or tradition of any particular people. It would have been very difficult to follow the exact beliefs of every single group in the world when creating this declaration, so I believe that the writers created it to follow the codes of the countries that were in the United Nations. It was important when writing it, to keep the rights broad so that a large range of nations could use them to fit their individual laws. With the entry of more nations into the UN and the growth of many new and diverse cultures, the conversations in the UN have changed in that they realize that what they thought was very broad is not broad enough. They are having a hard time imposing their laws while there are many nations whose governments do not fit the style modeled by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The largest problem with this declaration is that words are not elastic. They cannot keep up with hundreds of dynamic governments. This has been recognized by many nations and has allowed nations to use them as general guidelines and are consequently taken less seriously.
The debates and dialogues that took place as people considered the UDHR were probably very opinionated. It is very hard to come up with one definition of Human Rights, and one way to protect those rights. People have different opinions on the topic and tend to see the purpose of the UDHR in different ways depending on their beliefs and where they are from. Most people at the time probably believed that the UDHR would be helpful, and would stop genocide. Now a day the conversations would probably be more opinionated and there would be many skeptics. Many would say that the UDHR is pointless and not worth spending time on because not that many countries adhere to it. Others say it is helpful but define the articles of the declaration differently.
It would be very hard to outline the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings without the articulation of universal rights. If the treatment is for everyone in the world then they need to be based off of rights that are universal. They can’t be based off of one countries ideals.
When the creators first set out to create a formal declaration of human rights I imagine the general conceptions were fairly easily laid out. Rights like no slavery, or life, liberty, and control of one's own actions, were probably mutually agreed upon and so established early on. But as the details of certain more precise ideals were being debated, I imagine that different values from different countries caused some conflict. What is legal in one country may not be in the next, so a certain amount of strife is bound to generate. Today the conversations, because of the solid foundations the original discussions set down, are probably based more on hypothetical situations and prevention of future attrocities. The most effective way to manifest the universal rights of humanity is to articulate it and I do not think another method could be as effective.
When the idea of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first introduced, it was probably widely criticized. How could one document encompass every nation's human rights ideals? It seems impossible. There are so many vastly different people in our world today, all of which view the value of a person in a different light. It seems almost risky to try and narrow down so many differing ideals into a declaration that all nations are expected to follow. Although this is true, I think that it was necessary that a Universal Declaration was made. The only way we can hope to prevent future violations of human rights is to first define human rights, and then find ways to adhere to them, like the leaders of nations did with this universal declaration. Although it might have prompted disagreements among nations at first, I think that it's the only way it could have been done.
I think that the debates that took place would have centered around what people thought were basic human rights that everyone is entitled to. They probably also spent a lot of time on how to make sure everyone has equal rights but still not take away any cultural differences that are not violating any rights. Those conversations have probably changed to adapt to the much more connected and globalized world we live in today. They probably focus more on specific issues as well, because most information is widespread across the globe in seconds. I don't think there are other ways to outline basic human rights, other than a different global governing body. The minimum standards need to be articulated so that people have something concrete to stand for, and protect people with when they are persecuted.
I am sure that it was not easy to set up Human Rights, which should have everybody. Different people have different opinions and I, for instance, would say that more things count as Human Rights than somebody whose universe of obligation just includes his family. the main problem is, that it was talked about these rights, but at the same time not really many nations seem to care about them. As an example i want to state, that the UNO declared a promise, The Millennium Development Goals, to Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger and...
...halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day.
...achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people.
...halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals thanks wikipedia for this nice summarize)
But in fact, more people than ever before suffer from hunger and there was nothing made to change that so far.
What this example shows for me is, that the problem is not to talk about things: Every nation knows what is going on and that there are genocides today and that Human Rights, which people spent a long time on developing, are hurt everyday. The problem is just that we don't act.
In the beginning of mankind we did not care about others than those who were in your universe of obligation, for example your tribe. But as we develop, we start to care about other human beings as well, and we begin to make rules how people should be treated. This is a great idea, but obviously it is not enough. I cannot say if it takes months, years, or maybe even decades until we start doing things. Development takes time, this is normal. The only problem with that is, that we might not have enough time...
First of all the debates would have been very urgent , a least in the beginning, as a result of the recent atrocities. The debates would have began with a very western view, since the past events and continuing events were in Germany and surrounding countries. Thus, when drafting the declaration, the cultures of Asian, African, and South American were left out of consideration. The debate was focusing more on how to infuse mainly American and British ideals to create a document that would prevent another Holocaust. There was probably very little opposition to this very lopsided western and European view, since no one could foresee other conflicts in other regions of the world.
Today these debates are great deal more complicated, and encompass many more regions of the world. Nations have to take into account ideas from each individual country, and make sure that the declaration does not infringe on them, since this would create unnecessary conflicts. The debates have to make many compromises, which may limit the declaration of rights, but would be the most efficient way to make sure rights are protected. It is almost impossible to actually apply and keep all of the rights established by the original Declaration of Human Rights, since the democratic ideals of the West are not seen through out the rest of the world.
It is incredibly difficult to come up with anything "universal" just because people across the world have different beliefs and ways of life. And a Universal Declaration of Human Rights is no different. People would have argued how to deal with the fact that local laws sometimes permit the use of inhumane behavior, such as Hitler did when he instigated all of the rules specifically for the persecution of Jews. Also, what are to be the punishments of someone who was to break these laws? What are the boundaries as to when the international community intervenes,and when does the United Nations let individual nations deal with their own issues? Also, it would have been discussed how to argue the wording of the Declaration, because it has to include everyone, but not be so broad as to allow for loopholes. These conversations have been changed today now that there have been more instances of violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When it was written, they were only thinking about the two major ones that had happened, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide. But today we have to consider many other places each with unique difficulties that the people who originally wrote the Declaration. Issues such as international intervention. What happens when the government is supporting the genocide or other atrocity?
Obviously when you try to take all the moral values and ethical practices from all the cultures in the world and try to encompass them into one set of universal human rights, there is going to be some conflict of opinion. I imagine the first debates and dialogues that took place when the notion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was considered were most prominently, what can you define as human rights? When multiple nations and ethnic groups disagree completely on a particular right, how do you decide which idea is more "right"? Who would decide? Would compromise of ideals yield anything? Is it better to create broad, general rights, open to interpretation, or more specific, definite rights, protected from loopholes?
I think now that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has finally to some point been agreed upon, new questions arise. The rights are on paper, but they continue to be violated. In Rwanda, Darfur, Burma, North Korea, China, the Congo, Georgia, Iraq, and countless other countries crimes against humanity, genocides and other such atrocities, have or continue to rage. The United Nations, which was created for the purpose of insuring the rights of all human beings, seems powerless to prevent these occurrences. It can provide aid to the victims, and send in peace keeping forces to try to thwart the perpetrators, but can only help heal the damage, not prevent it. Is it possible to prevent violations of human rights? How can the universal rights of all people be maintained? How are the violators to be dealt with?
I think it is essential to have an articulation of universal rights, so that any body such as the United Nations can have basis for its cause. Additionally, it would prevent any violators to be legally punished for their actions. I am not sure if I can think of an alternative to outline the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings, independent from the idea of creating a declaration. Certainly education of the future generations is critical, but I think it would be reliant on a universal declaration of rights.
I think that when the UNDHR was first introduced, it wasn't accepted. It probably didn't really make sense to put human rights on paper. That was probably only because most of them were really obvious. The rights mentioned at the beginning, like life and liberty and such, are givens and were probably not that hard to mess up. However, I think that at a first attempt of articulating human rights, they probably should have avoided details. I don't think there are many other ways to outline human rights.
It must have been very difficult for a set of rights to be agreed upon by everyone. The task that was laid out ahead of them was a difficult one, to find a set of rights that would be viewed as "right" by all humans. The conversations and debates that took place at this conference must have been extremely oppinionated, making it nearly impossible to create the list of human rights. The people that were in charge of creating these rights had to know where to draw the line from what they saw human rights as and what actually were human rights. The number of different opinions that were involved in the process, made it longer and more difficult to agree upon certain things. The conversations that took place there have changed over the years. The UNDHR now describes how to treat people during or after an atrocity. The many conflicts between nations over time have changed the outlined rules that were created years ago.
While trying to make a Universal Declaration of Human Rights I can only imagine the major issues that were met along the way. Every country has separate ideals and standards. The Universal Declaration would have to be made of vague rights in order to pertain to all countries. In addition the countries that helped make up the Declaration would have to be careful not to add their own ideals into the Universal Declaration. The basic rights would be justice, life, liberty, and control of self. As the human rights went beyond the basics the decisions most likely became more difficult. The human rights set by the Universal Declaration were made to prevent future atrocities. But did this actually work? Are these human rights followed all over the world? No, however I do not believe there is any other way to set human rights standards across the globe.
When people first considered the idea of universal human rights, I can imagine that many were opposed to this notion as they may have thought these rights would favor a specific group. Though the UDHR says that rights are equal, regardless of color, race, gender, religion, etc., the concern of equality was most likely discussed in length. In addition, because universal rights was a new idea, it was probably very difficult to come up with rights that everyone agreed with as countries and their morals/values are so diverse. Nowadays, the conversation has most likely changed to how to adjust the UDHR to today's problems, such as recent genocides that must be addressed. There isn't really any other way besides this declaration to outline the treatment of human beings universally because if they were not written down, they would not be understood as well and therefore not taken as seriously.
I would think that it would be very hard to have multiple countries agree on what should be considers a human right. Since everyone has different views, beliefs and circles of obligation there was bound to be some disagreement. There was probably quiet a bit of compromising going on, if they could all meet each other all the way they could at least meet each other half way. Then when the actually did come to some sort of agreement it must have been hard to be able to word what they wanted to say so that no one could disagree, or find some sort of loophole. If they were too vague then people could misinterpret something which could lead to another crime against humanity, and even get away with it. Then if they were too specific than no one would be able to agree on anything.
I suspect that most of the discrepancies between the basic human rights that countries wanted to put in the UNDHR at its inception arose from differing concepts about human rights that they already had in their governments and cultures. There was much variation in government type and the rights promised to citizens in the world after WWII, as there still is today. For example, the US is currently among the minority of countries in the world that still have and use the death penalty. By contrast, there are still other countries with laws that seriously oppress women and where abortion is illegal, both of which are things not directly sanctioned by US law.
The point of this is that though some of the debates about what basic human rights should be defined as would have been different in the 1940-50's, there would still be much disagreement between nations if the UNDHR was discussed and redefined today.
Bearing in mind the wide variety of opinions on human rights, I can't think of an alternate way to define and enforce human rights. Even in the form they are expressed in now, which is quite clear, straightforward, and relatively well published, the guidelines in the UNDHR are distressingly easily and frequently broken. This is even true in the US, which we would like to see as being upright and just. I can name off the top of my head numerous articles that the Us breaks, like the ban on torture (waterboarding?), which is in Atricle 5, and the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention (Guantanamo?), which is Article 9.
As people across the world first considered the notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I imagine that it was very difficult to decide on what to include. While there were some rights that were probably agreed on, like the right to food and shelter and such, many others depended on culture and where the person lives. What is acceptable in one country could be seen as disgraceful in another, and vice versa, which is why the details of it must have been very difficult to agree on. Today, as communications across the world have improved greatly, it is easier to see different cultures and how other people live and it would therefore be easier to outline the basic rights of all humans, but I still feel like there is no way to write a Universal document that includes more than just the most obvious rights. As the UNDHR showed, although many people worked across the world to make it as fair of a document as possible, it was still based off of a democratic government and everyone in the world certainly doesn't follow it. There have been many instances in history since it was written where people's universal human rights based on this document were violated, and not all of them have been punished for it. It very hard to have a document such as this, because circumstances change. While certain things are never acceptable, there are going to be conflicts in beliefs concerning others.
I imagine there was a lot of controversy that took place as people across the world began to consider the notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am sure that everyone had different views on what each person had the right of. There must have been a difficult decision in creating the declaration of human rights because those creating it had to make sure it was not biased and that their own personal opinion was not added into it. The conversations have changed today because of all that has happened in this world so far, including the Holocaust, 9/11 and other massacres. However, just because there is a Declaration stating the “rights” of each human being, it does not necessarily mean they are followed. Despite the fact they are written out on a document, people are going to act in a way they feel is right, whether it is a part of the Universal Declaration. There will always be controversy in response to such a notion because everyone thinks differently and believes they have the rights to certain things that may not necessarily be seen as OK to others; for instance, inflicting violence on another is seen as a way to solve a problem for some, yet to others it is seen as a heinous crime. Although they may not be followed, it is good to have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that everyone is aware of them and knows that they will face consequences for going against it.
I could definitely imagine that there was a lot of difficulty in deciding what rights belonged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As there are a multitude of different cultures all over the world, it would be very hard to decide on which rights should be applicable to every human being in the world. There would be tons of clashing views on this issue. I think that at the time of the creation of the document, there was definitely a heavy western influence, as many of the rights stated in the document were adapted from documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
I don't think that there is really any way to outline the standards for the treatment of human beings. There is not really a 'standard' that can be agreed upon by all the nations in the world. I think that people have to consider the different cultures and beliefs of the different areas in the world, as America's 'standard' could be very different from a country in Asia's 'standard.' Also, I don't think that having a Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very effective because not many countries/people adhere to these rights.
It must have been very difficult to write a sent of rights that encompassed all the nation's human rights. Every nation's rights had to be involved, but also what is considered a "right" in one country might not be in the next. Each nation has their own set of laws and values and it is hard to determine what is specific to each country and what is universal. Also the writing of the UNDHR could not be affected by each persons specific morals or beliefs. Once the UNDHR was written how do you punnish those who violate the universal human rights? When is a single nations responsible for unjust actions, and when does the United Nations have to step in and handle the situation? When the UNDHR was first written, the authors only had two genocides to refrence, the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Since then conversations must now incude more recent genocides and events.
When these debates took place i'm sure that there were alot of arguments and conflicting points of view between people from different countries. There were tough debates probably because peoples points of view on rights people should have most likely depended on where they were from because every country had different rights and laws at the time.
I think that today these conversations would be a little different because after all the different genocides and atrocities that have taken place people have a much greater respect for humans rights. Today universal human rights would be much more specific and strict, meaning there would be more rights given in order to prevent any future genocides.
Creating these universal human rights is the only way to create minimum standards for human rights in my opinion because every country has such different ideals and standards at times that this is the only way that all countries can have the same code to relate to.
I bet that when the UNDHR was first thought of, there were many debates over the items it would cover. Surely different countries would want to include different things based on their own customs and culture. (That is, this debate would occur after the initial debate over WHO would be allowed to have input on the UNDHR). Some countries with more power surely would've gotten more say.
I'm not sure if there are different ways to outline human rights (besides each country outlining it on their own), but maybe there should have been a really basic outline that they could have used as a starting point. I don't see why all parties wouldn't have agreed upon basic human needs such as shelter, water, food, and safety as human rights.
As people across the world first considered the notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there must have been several debates and dialogue, including: the definition of Human Rights and the distinction between Human Rights and those rights appropriated by the government; the Human Rights, both agreements and contestations, that would occur within cultures, etc; what groups, if any, would have the right to uphold and fight for Human Rights; and who would be required to adhere to the Human Rights Declaration (i.e. who would be held accountable for not upholding the Human Rights Declaration).
I think that it would be extremely difficult to outline the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings across the globe without the articulation, or “the coherent expression of thoughts, ideas, or feelings,” of universal rights. This is because there would be no solid definition of Human Rights, and then those people who would violate Human Rights would have the opportunity to argue that they hadn’t actually violated Human Rights because it wasn’t clear what exactly they were. In every case of a successful governmental or interventional body, it has a basis in a document, where its rules, goals, or principles might be stated. An articulation of Human Rights provides the basis for humanitarian organizations to build off of.
I think the first discussions about the Universal Delaration of Human Rights were overall positive, based on the events that had happened in the recent past. I think one of the main problems for the people who first introduced the UNDHR was how to promote it and make sure that everybody followed and was aware of it. I think the conversations have completely changed, especially within the major powers in the United Nations, especially the United States. As we viewed today in class, many of the articles have been violated by the US, so in my opinion I don't think the discussion would be focused on how to spread knowledge about this document. I think this was probably the best way to declare all of the rights, I only think it lacked re-enforcement.
I believe creating the UNDHR was a huge step in declaring what all human beings were entitled to. But it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in such a huge and ambiguous subject. The debates and dialogues were probably very long and confusing. The UNDHR should try to include all nations in the world, to make it as fair as possible. But different countries differ in culture, ideals, religion, customs, etc. One country may view religious prosecution as a necessity for the betterment of the country, while others may believe it to be disregarding all human rights.Unfortunately, the UNDHR applies more to nations with a democratic government. Countries without a democratic government would not be able to easily interpret or apply these human rights to their country. There would be no way to please every single nation, and this problem still applies to our world today. And though there is no one same nation in the world, there are general ideas that can be applied to the world. Thus, we should keep human rights not specific to one nation. Having written rights I believe is better than not having anything written at all.
I think the dialogues and debates bewtween people about the UNDHR were very diverse.Everyone had different views about certain issues, but I think many overlapped on issues such as basic human rights. Violence,and persecution towards people were thought wrong, and the main idea was equality for everyone, without anyone being excluded. I think they agreed on general ideas such as these and made them clear verbally, and written so there was no confusion about the rules. If the rules aren't written there's loopholes for people saying "oh that rule didn't say that or what not." I think the rules were about general ideas that were specific on those ideas.Today I'd think the rules would be harder to make because our world has gone through so much as opposed to back then. We've seen how the Holocaust and other genocides came into being and the rules that are made today would try to prevent them even though they can't. Since we've seen so much we know how these other genocides start in turn allowing us to state more rules.
I think the idea of a Declaration of Human Rights for different countries would result in various reactions. Not all countries would be happy to have the same rights as others, and certain rights might be hard for certain countries to follow. There might have been other various problems such as how specific rights are interpreted, and how they apply specifically to areas. I think the UNDHR is important to set an outline of basic rights against murder and harm to others. I also think it gives some power to the individual, and lets people know the freedom they have.
Nowadays people think differently of these rights because of experience that they have gone through, or seen people go through involving the rights. It is hard though to judge when to invade or interrupt feuding countries, because sometimes that might make situations totally worse. However, the UNDHR is good to show basic outlines of right and wrong, probably better than any other document could, seeing as how others failed in the past.
Agreeing on basic things for countries are a difficult one and something like the Universal Decleration of Human Rights is not that simple. It must have been extremly hard to decide the UDHR and a high amount of debates and dialogues must have taken place. The conversations must have changed a little, especially if discussing basic human rights which most countries agree with each other on but other decisions such as things about genocides they have a harded time agreeing with each other on. There is a minimum standard for the treatment of human beings although it is not written down they are the things like be kind to one another, they are passed down from generation to generation and parents yelling at kids to do that.
Establishing a uniform list of basic human rights would be a difficult endeavor. The main issue of contention in establishing such a list of universal human rights stems from the vast diversity of opinions held around the world. What one country might believe is a universal human right might conflict with another groups cultural values, thus causing significant strife.
This has changed slightly in the last half century do to the increase in communications between cultures leading to a greater exchange of ideas and consensus on certain areas. Finally I believe the only solution to outlining the minimum standards for the treatment of human beings is by establishing the list of universal human rights.
When people first considered the UDHR, I think that many people were probably very doubtful of how effective and fair it would be.
Because the UDHR was a new idea and it was being written up by a variety of people, there was probably a lot of debate and disagreement over what "equality" was and what rights people should be allowed without discrimination. If rights were vague, then people would be able to slip through the rules more easily. If the rights were strict, there would be less sense of freedom, and absolutely no leniency. I imagine it was difficult to find a happy medium.
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first released, the debates and discussions were probably similar to those that take place today. Clearly, in light of the Holocaust, it had become necessary to write out the rights that all humans should benefit from. However, both today and when the Declaration was first released, the discussions probably touched on the difficulty the United Nations would have in enforcing their doctrine. The fact that the United Nations is made up of member nations, and is not a separate body entirely, makes it very difficult for it to enforce its decrees. Because interests of member nations will undoubtedly conflict with the interests of human rights, a body such as the United Nations will never be able to effectively enforce their Declaration. As far as outlining the standards for how to treat humans, the Declaration of human rights seems obvious and unecessary, but in light of the atrocities committed, it was necessary that an international body spell humans' specific rights in a Declaration such as this. If there were no atrocities on the scale of the Holocaust, the declaration would not be necessary. But unfortunately for humankind, there are similar atrocities, and the declaration is necessary
Although I was absent on Monday, I believe that when the UNDHR was first being decided, I would think that there were many agrumentative dialogues and constant debating. Its hard to put one set of rules for so many diverse people. Everyone has their own set of believes and thoughts about how they should live, or how everyone should be treated and it must have been the hardest proccess on coming to an agreement as to which rules will be set on all people. I would assume that this process took a very very long time, probably a lot longer then most assumed. Back then everyone probably wanted to have their own rules for each country because they figured that their rules would be far different from others, but I think nations agree with each other more then before. I think they share a lot more of the same believes and thoughts. I think that there isn't that many problems with the UNDHR now, it seems as though people are pretty happy with it. Although, there are still many acts against these set of rules all over the world. I feel that some countries ignore human rights an act as they please. I think that in some way it should be reminded to people that this declartion still stands, and shouldn't be ignored. BTW Ms.Ruback this is Tanya, don't mind my weird screename, I forgot my password and have been posting with this name, just thought I'd let you know! :)
Post a Comment