In response to one of yesterday's blog posts, I was reflecting on anti-fascist statements, which led me to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps the greatest of them all. It was adopted in 1948.
I read this in 2007 when I used it as the basis for some work on the right to tax. But it occurred to me that most people will not have done so. So, I am sharing it here.
The question is, how to use this now? And does it need changing in any way?
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas 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,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
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, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
- No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
- Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
- Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
- Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
- This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
- Everyone has the right to a nationality.
- No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
- Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
- Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
- Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
- No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
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.
Article 20
- Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
- No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
- Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
- Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
- The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
- Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
- Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
- Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
- Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
- Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
- Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
- 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.
- Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
- Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
- Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
- Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- 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.
- These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The great thing about the UN Declaration is that it exists and its very clear statements of principle has had a huge influence on international law and relations ever since.
The main problem with the UN Declaration is that it is a high-minded statement of principle, but has no enforcement mechanism.
From a practical point of view, of an individual person trying rely on their rights or achieve some sort of remedy if their rights are beached, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are much more important. Which is why of course some people hate them. The idea that every person has the same rights is unacceptable to some.
Which is exactly why I am thinking about this
There are a number of striking points, but one simple one that I note is in Article 23.
“Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.”
In other words, a business that won’t pay a fair wage because they say they can’t afford to pay a full time worker enough money to enable them to avoid debt or have to use foodbanks – needs to look at it’s business model in order to fall under within the DHR.
And for those companies that can’t, it falls to the government to make up the difference, according to this declaration.
Hollow words to me.
I read somewhere the other day that ‘hope’ was ‘Where people think that someone else is going to sort it out’.
I couldn’t agree more.
Hope is really as I increasingly see at the end of one’s pitchfork or arms that we decide to take up against those who deny us these rights.
The argument that David Allen Green puts forward in his blog with some value is that it is more important that people behave constitutionally than the existence of a constitution.
The UK is of course in the worst possible place without a constitution and the ruling class revelling in behaving unconstitutionally.
Could we trust anyone in the present febrile climate to produce effective and enforceable rules that would be equitable, honest and transparent?
Dominic Raab is the Justice Secretary.
Thank you for this, Richard, as it’s a long time since I read the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, way back in my time at PCL/University of Westminster doing my L.L.B. (1986-90).
For I suddenly saw the likely origins on the style of EU legislation – a comprehensive Preamble, setting out underlying principles, followed by specifics.
I DO wish Westminster used the same methodology, because the Preamble effectively summarises the thinking behind the specifics, powerfully assisting judges who are asked to judge on the application of the specifics.
UK legislation simply gives a title to legislation, in long and short forms.
Here’s the long title of the contentious “Police, Crime Setencing and Courts Bill”.
“Long title
A Bill to make provision about the police and other emergency workers; to make provision about collaboration between authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence; to make provision about offensive weapons homicide reviews; to make provision for new offences and for the modification of existing offences; to make provision about the powers of the police and other authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime or investigating other matters; to make provision about the maintenance of public order; to make provision about the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles; to make provision in connection with driving offences; to make provision about cautions; to make provision about bail and remand; to make provision about sentencing, detention, release, management and rehabilitation of offenders; to make provision about secure 16 to 19 Academies; to make provision for and in connection with procedures before courts and tribunals; and for connected purpose”
Comparing this with the Preamble to the Declaration, it is self-evident that the former, the Long Title, is little more than a precis of the Bill itself – effectively liyyle more than a Table of Contents.
The Preamble, by contrast, makes it clear what was the thinking of the UN, in creating the Univetsal Declaration, especially with its ending:
“Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
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, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”
No judge having this preamble before him or her would adopt a narrow, legalistic, interpretation of the facts before him or her for judgement, but would instead adopt a purposive approach, as to what the Declaration’s purpose was/is, and therefore how best justice would be served.
The Police Bill’s intent is tick-box, in my opinion, compelling judges to adopt a “letter of the law” approach, where the intention of the Declaration is to encourage a humane and respectful approach, always erring on the side of respect for the individual and the wider societal good.
The latter is much to be preferred to the former, not least because of examples, such as that pulling down a statue under the Police Bill could earn the perpetrator 10 years in prison, where if the perpetrator occasioned ABH (Actual Bodily Harm, under Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861) to the person whom the statue represented, s/he would only receive a 5-year sentence!
Andrew
I agree, even when reading this last night it struck me how close this is to EU style drafting
And I also agree how good this is – and it makes purposive interpretation so much easier
That is a direction we need to move in more than we have as well, especially in tax
Richard
Sorry, Richard but I use neither Facebook nor Twitter. How do I send you a link to a (short but informative) article about Danny Alexander’s current involvement with AIIB, together with Cameron ? If you are aware, fine, but it seems pretty relevant to your sphere of interest.
Email
See the about page
Richard,
Although the UN Declaration is a very fine document the fundamental problem is that it is not enforced.
The Chinese government routinely abuses human rights. The appalling treatment of the Uighur people is just one recent example where women in particular are suffering because of their religion. Yet what does the UN do? Absolutely nothing because China is a powerful country.
I am aware of that
But I am thinking about principles in any case right now
You are probably reading Jessica Whyte’s “The Morals of the Market :Human Rights and the rise of Neoliberalism”. If not ,do.
All rights are subservient to article 17 and it puts law above politics.
So Chile cannot overturn Pinochet’s laws.
I am not
But thanks
I confess I am more concerned by the determination of the Government to butcher and fillet the English language, eviscerating it of any meaning at all. Dominic Raab employs his usual legalised technique that renders interpretation meaningless. On BBC he claimed the Sue Gray report would offer the public “full transparency”, but not necessarily by being able to read the full report; a decision that is entirely in the hands of – Boris Johnson. Nevertheless, in whatever form the PM chooses at his sole discretion to publish it, Raab assures us all that “we welcome that transparency”. So now we know; transparency is opaque.
Not content with this guff, Raab made this claim about the Sue Gray report: “The whole point of Sue Gray conducting this investigation is that she can look without fear or favour at whatever she wants to look at, and we avoid trial by media or the soap opera of things coming out without being substantiated”. For the avoidance of doubt, the point of the Sue Gray report was to play for time when Johnson was on the very steps of the political gallows; time, so that Boris Johnson could muster his Ministers, Government and Whips, to Whip the recalcitrant MPs into line. Sue Gray is not independent; she can’t be independent. She will submit her report to the PM; it is all at his discretion. It is already clear that nobody in government even expects her to “decide” anything. She will report “the facts”, whatever that means. This is what government as Whitehall Farce looks like.
The Civil Service is not independent, when it is investigating the PM and his Downing Street operation. The Civil Service should never have been used in this way, and it is a constitutional disgrace that Johnson, Raab and the whole wretched crew have resorted to this grubby tactic. This is a political matter, and can be decided only by Parliament; but Johnson, Raab and the Government know that they can’t even trust their own Conservative back-bench MPs, still less Parliament, to exonerate the PM. This is why Sue Gray was brought in. The problem is, they do not know whether Sue Gray will give the worm-like Johnson, now dangling on the hook, any wriggle room at all.
The technique Raab is adopting here, is presumably what made his tenure in the Foreign Office such a roaring success; at least in being able to assure us that the failure in Afghanistan was nothing to do with him. He should know; he is a lawyer, and I am sure that is a great solace to our troops who served there, and the thousands of Afghans (and their families), who served as interpreters for the British, and didn’t make it out either. Look very hard at Dominic Raab, because that is what British Government today looks like, sounds like, and acts like.