The occasion of UDHR@75 has let to many articles on its relevance to today’s world, which sees such a ‘heightened risk’ of mass atrocities due to global inaction and a diminished UN ‘responsibility to protect’ principle and ambition to prevent genocides, as stated by Julian Borger in the Guardian of 8 December 2023. These warnings come on the 75th anniversaries this weekend of the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both signed in the aftermath of the Holocaust in the hope that the world would act in concert to prevent a repeat of such mass slaughter.
Borger describes also in some detail how the USA’s ambition to stop atrocity crimes had “diminished in terms of its saliency within the administration as a guiding principle”
Two pieces in Geneva Solutions look at the UDHR closer:
One is by Pip Cook: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights: fit for the 21st century?” and the other by Marc Limon “After 75 years, what is the UN human rights system’s theory of change?”
The first starts with a good overview of the birth of the UDHR and then states: …”With the world facing human rights challenges on so many fronts, some might be tempted to dismiss the declaration as idealistic or unrealistic – a non-legally binding document that nations may claim to adhere to on the international stage but disregard entirely depending on their own political agendas. However, defenders of the UDHR argue that to judge it on how often it is violated is to miss its point altogether.
“I’m not sure how much the document can be judged on whether it’s always adhered to or not,” said Felix Kirchmeier, executive director of the Geneva Human Rights Platform. “That question comes up in human rights all the time, but it comes up much less in other domains. Nobody would ask whether health policy was still valuable now that we have the pandemic.”
“I think the declaration might be even more needed now than ever because it allows us to really see these core values and the universal approach to them,” he added. “The proof of its relevance is the fact that despite all violations of human rights and despite all the attacks to the universal validity of human rights, the document itself is not being disputed in any serious way,” he continued. “So I think that’s also proof of its strength.”
….Ultimately, perhaps the greatest value of the declaration is that it gave universal human rights a language. Known as the most translated document in the world, available in 500 different languages, it provides a rhetoric that people from all corners of the world still use to this day..
Pip closes with the words of Eleanor Roosevelt in her speech to the UN to mark the tenth anniversary of the declaration in 1958. Her words captured the reason why human rights are for every one of us, in all parts of our daily lives, as well as the world as a whole. “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?” she began. “In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works.
The second piece by Limon – executive director of the Universal Rights Group - asks: …”Yet two equally – if not more – crucial questions linger: what was the Universal Declaration’s theory of change, meaning how did its authors intend for it to improve the situation of human rights for all “the Peoples” of the UN, and has the UN succeeded in translating the universal norms into local reality?”
Different actors have developed markedly different theories of what the UN human rights system is, what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to improve the situation of human rights at the national level.
For some, the system is mainly for the benefit of developing countries, and its principal utility is to respond to serious human rights violations and hold abusing states accountable. Its main purpose, in other words, is to protect human rights.
For others, it is a universal system in which all states should be treated equally. It is there to engage with them through cooperation and dialogue to gradually improve human rights laws, policies and practices over time, including through the delivery of international capacity-building support. The system’s main objective here is, in other words, to promote human rights.
For some, human rights norms should be in a constant state of progressive development, even in sensitive issues such as sexual orientation and gender identity, or sexual and reproductive health and rights, and should be imposed by the UN. Where states resist, it is because they are not committed to human rights and should be called out and forced to catch up.
For others, the UN is there to provide a platform where states can reach a common understanding of universal human rights norms. This is what happened in the case of the UN’s recognition of the right to a healthy environment. After that, it can provide capacity-building and technical support to help those countries making insufficient progress…
So, who is right? There is some truth to both views. For example, the mandate of the Human Rights Council explicitly includes both the protection and promotion dimensions of human rights. And therein lies the answer – the international human rights system, built from the foundations of the Universal Declaration, embodies different – yet complementary – theories of change.
The simple truth is that human rights change cannot be imposed from the outside, by certain states or even by the international community as a whole, without the consent of the state concerned. Bottom-up demands for change, for example, led by local civil society, can and frequently do succeed in securing improvements in the enjoyment of human rights, especially in democracies.
However, in many countries, the power imbalance between civil society and governments means that NGOs and local communities, acting alone, can be easily ignored or even suppressed.
Over a decade of the Universal Rights Group’s research shows that a winning approach, instead, is to combine top-down pressure for improvement with bottom-up calls for change within a framework that is accepted by the state or government and of which it feels a sense of ownership…
While the international human rights system, therefore, encapsulates different and complementary theories of change (think “carrot and stick”), for a vast majority of states, the vast majority of the time, the former theory of change is the most relevant.
As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are increasing signs, from states (both developed and developing), civil society, the secretary general, the high commissioner, UN resident coordinators and others, of a shift towards a common understanding of this predominant theory of change. Building on that shared understanding and thereby effectively translating universal rights into local reality would truly be the best way to mark the adoption of this historic document.
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
