Geoffrey Robertson: The diamond anniversary of a golden law
[Geoffrey Robertson QC is the author of 'Crimes Against Humanity' (Penguin) and a distinguished jurist member of the UN's Internal Justice Council.]
Sixty years ago this week, on December 10, 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt unveiled a document she described as "the International Magna Carta for Mankind". This was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an imperishable statement of the elemental liberties that all individuals should enjoy, irrespective of the kind of government to which they are subjected.
Because some of its provisions have been adopted by the European Convention on Human Rights and enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, they have caused controversy. The Conservatives worry that the rights of the victims of crime are overlooked and promise a "British bill of rights". The universal declaration, however, is far removed from the nuances of this debate. The rights it seeks to assure are elemental: the right to property that is not stolen by the state, the right to live free from tyrants such as Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-il.
Although human rights in Britain are seen as a liberal aspiration, the declaration is not "liberal" in any coherent way: philosophically it embodies a lowest common denominator of post-war decency, imbued with the moral conservatism of the time (adopting, for example, the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society"), allied to some emerging democratic socialist ideals such as a basic wage, the right to health care and education, and to join trade unions. Its clauses are made subject to sweeping exceptions requiring responsibility, which embody the communitarian philosophy that "everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible".
The declaration took two years to draft and represents the best judgment that could be made at the time on the rights that would be necessary to prevent the resurgence of fascism and to honour Franklin Roosevelt's promise of a world order featuring four freedoms: "freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and fear".
As the 20th century ended, a few declaration promises started to come true. The Pinochet case showed that the rule against torture had teeth - to the astonishment of the world's torturers and their allies. The arrest of Milosevic, followed into the dock of international criminal courts by Charles Taylor and Karadzic and Pol Pot's lieutenants, proved that political and military leaders who mass murder their own people are no longer immune from prosecution. The International Criminal Court is now up and running and the policy behind the universal declaration - that all governments must respect basic rights - is being enforced, albeit selectively.
That is how far we have come in 60 years, and it indicates how far we have to go before the declaration really becomes the Magna Carta for humankind. UN members have not yet worked out how or when to punish governments such as Zimbabwe's, which massively abuse declaration rights. Military coups still go unpunished. There is no resolve at the UN to protect free speech, which is suffering setbacks throughout the world. Although most countries purport to align their foreign policy with the declaration, they need constant prompting from NGOs such as Amnesty International, who have, in effect, become the real guardians of the declaration and its universalist principles...
Read entire article at Telegraph (UK)
Sixty years ago this week, on December 10, 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt unveiled a document she described as "the International Magna Carta for Mankind". This was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an imperishable statement of the elemental liberties that all individuals should enjoy, irrespective of the kind of government to which they are subjected.
Because some of its provisions have been adopted by the European Convention on Human Rights and enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, they have caused controversy. The Conservatives worry that the rights of the victims of crime are overlooked and promise a "British bill of rights". The universal declaration, however, is far removed from the nuances of this debate. The rights it seeks to assure are elemental: the right to property that is not stolen by the state, the right to live free from tyrants such as Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-il.
Although human rights in Britain are seen as a liberal aspiration, the declaration is not "liberal" in any coherent way: philosophically it embodies a lowest common denominator of post-war decency, imbued with the moral conservatism of the time (adopting, for example, the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society"), allied to some emerging democratic socialist ideals such as a basic wage, the right to health care and education, and to join trade unions. Its clauses are made subject to sweeping exceptions requiring responsibility, which embody the communitarian philosophy that "everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible".
The declaration took two years to draft and represents the best judgment that could be made at the time on the rights that would be necessary to prevent the resurgence of fascism and to honour Franklin Roosevelt's promise of a world order featuring four freedoms: "freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and fear".
As the 20th century ended, a few declaration promises started to come true. The Pinochet case showed that the rule against torture had teeth - to the astonishment of the world's torturers and their allies. The arrest of Milosevic, followed into the dock of international criminal courts by Charles Taylor and Karadzic and Pol Pot's lieutenants, proved that political and military leaders who mass murder their own people are no longer immune from prosecution. The International Criminal Court is now up and running and the policy behind the universal declaration - that all governments must respect basic rights - is being enforced, albeit selectively.
That is how far we have come in 60 years, and it indicates how far we have to go before the declaration really becomes the Magna Carta for humankind. UN members have not yet worked out how or when to punish governments such as Zimbabwe's, which massively abuse declaration rights. Military coups still go unpunished. There is no resolve at the UN to protect free speech, which is suffering setbacks throughout the world. Although most countries purport to align their foreign policy with the declaration, they need constant prompting from NGOs such as Amnesty International, who have, in effect, become the real guardians of the declaration and its universalist principles...