The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is primarily a Western document, limiting the claimed universal applicability of Human Rights

Résumé du document

On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the Third General Assembly of the United Nations. In the aftermath of WW2, nearly every state that had fought with the Western Allies wanted the atrocities of Nazism and Fascism to be prohibited. To do this solemnly, the concept of Human Rights hold by every human being seemed to be a good way of preventing such horror to happen again: it was condemning Nazism and Fascism as well as every other doctrine that would aim at the destruction of any population, individual, or culture. It was defending each person from aggression, torture and discrimination, only because of his or her being human, regardless of his/her nationality, religion, sex, and so on. At the time of writing, no one objected that it was a purely Western set of values, nor was it viewed as a kind of cultural imperialism. Criticisms emerged later. Today, the denying by some state of the existence of human rights occurs on a regular basis. Indeed, many states have tried to justify their practice by asserting that the right they apparently violate does not exist at all, with regards to their culture, customs or beliefs.

Extraits

[...] “There were representatives from a number of predominantly Islamic states (Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen as well as India and Lebanon where Islam is strong) ; largely Buddhist China, Burma, and Siam ; Hinduist India, as well as Ethiopia and Liberia from sub-Saharan Africa.”[8] Such a coalition did press for the adoption of the Declaration, and its very composition denies the idea of a purely Western UDHR, or all these states and individuals would not have stood for it. Thus, the UDHR shall hardly be accused of being a primarily Western document. [...]

[...] Is the UDHR really contested because of the breach it may suggest to state sovereignty and/or because of its incompatibility with some culture, or because of the threat it represents for authoritarian states that violate such rights? What is at stake now, is first to determine whether these protests against a supposedly western cultural imperialism are based on relevant cultural grounds, or whether they are based on political interests too much burdened with HRs. In other words, we shall determine how Western the UDHR is. Second, does the fact that Human Rights are primarily rooted in Western values question the universal applicability of such rights? [...]

[...] Then, even if not represented in 1948, nearly all states finally adhered to the UDHR content. Moreover, not even one state did put the UDHR to popular approval. It was considered that because states were limiting their own authority, establishing self-limitations of their power, there was no need for their citizens to be consulted as they should have been in the case of a limitation of people's rights. Finally, HRs as they emerged from the Allies meetings (The Atlantic Charter, for instance) may be considered as imposed by the West. [...]

[...] Bibliography Susan Waltz, Universalizing HRs: the role of small states in the Construction of the UDHR, Human Rights Quaterly, 23/01/2001, 44-72 John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press http://www.ceu.hu/legal/ind_vs_state/Osiatynski_paper_2002.htm http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/volumes/2001/1-2/morsink-eckert.pdf The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Wiktor Osiatynski (Central European University) explains these traditions in his speech the Universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” that opened the 1Oth annual conference on “Individual vs. State”, Budapest, June 2002. Louis Henkin, Gerald L. Neuman, Diane F. Orentlichter, David W. Leebron, Human Rights at 280. Wiktor Osiatynski, June 2002. See Wiktor Osiatynski, June 2002. [...]

[...] Not less remarkable was the regular denunciation by the delegates from the Soviet Bloc of the HRs shortcomings of the Western states: Swiss denial of the franchise for women was one of them. Finally, non-Western states succeeded in the inclusion within the UDHR of their concern for social and economic rights, or for gender equality, concerns that were eventually opposed by the hegemon. Thus, there is no possible denying that small states did influence the writing of the Declaration, and the extent to which HRs were to be recognised. [...]