THE UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS IN
THE 21st CENTURY
A LIVING DOCUMENT
IN A CHANGING WORLD

A report by the
Global Citizenship Commission

CHAIRED BY GORDON BROWN

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE 21st CENTURY

The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in the 21st Century:
A Living Document in a
Changing World

A report by the
Global Citizenship Commission
Edited by Gordon Brownhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com© 2016 NYU Global Institute for Advanced Study.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license(CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; toadapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to theauthors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorses you or your use of the work).
Attribution should include the following information:
Gordon Brown (ed.), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living
Document in a Changing World. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2016. http://dx.doi.
org/10.11647/OBP.0091
In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit https://www.openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783742189#copyright
Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/All the external links were active on 25/3/2016 unless otherwise stated and have beenarchived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web
Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available athttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783742189#resources
The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views,
opinions, or official policy of any organization with which any individual Commissioner
may be affiliated, or of members of those organizations.
ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-218-9
ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-219-6
ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-220-2
ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-221-9
ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-222-6
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0091
Cover image: “In Our Hands” (2010) by Charamelody, CC BY-NC 2.0, https://www.flickr.
com/photos/charamelody/4546946888
All paper used by Open Book Publishers is SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative), PEFC
(Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes) and Forest StewardshipCouncil(r)(FSC(r) certified.
Printed in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia
by Lightning Source for Open Book Publishers (Cambridge, UK).

Contents

Glossaryix

Introduction by Gordon Brown

1

Preface by Paul Boghossian

7

Acknowledgments

9

Executive Summary

13

Preamble25

1. The Long and Influential Life of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights

29

1.1 History of the UDHR
1.2 Affirming and protecting the UDHR
1.3 The changing context
1.4 The enduring relevance of the UDHR
1.5 Legal status
1.6 Foundational principles
1.7 Universality
1.8 Interconnectivity of rights

29
31
32
32
34
35
36
38

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights

39

2.1 Rights of members of specific groupsa. The rights of womenb. The rights of childrenc. The rights of the disabled, including the profoundly
disabled
d. Rights related to sexual orientatione. The rights of prisoners

40
40
41
43
44
45

2.2 Rights of groups as sucha. The right to national self-determination, including
regional autonomy and subsidiarity
b. The rights of indigenous peoples
c. Ethnic cleansing
d. The rights of peoples prejudiced at the national orcommunal level by climate change

46
46

2.3 Rights related to other issues involving vital interests
a. Migrationb. Statelessnessc. Administrative justiced. Corruption
e. Privacy from state or corporate electronic surveillancef. Access to the Internet and electronic communication on a
global scale
g. Extreme poverty and deep economic inequality
h. Healthcare
i. A safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment

48
48
50
51
51
52
53

2.4 An open task

56

3. Limitations and Derogations
3.1 Adequacy of Article 29 account of limitations
3.2 Derogation of rights in national or international emergencies
3.3 Regulation of the use of force

4. Social and Economic Rights
4.1 The importance of social and economic rights
4.2 Relation to availability of resources
4.3 Responsibilities for social and economic rights
4.4 Poverty reduction and other human rights

5. Responsibility for Human Rights
5.1 The special role of states
5.2 Other entities
a. Sub-national governmentsb. International institutions
c. Corporations
d. Private persons
5.3 Responsibilities of rights-bearers
5.4 No closed model of responsibility

47
47
47

53
54
55

57
57
59
60
63
63
65
66
69
71
72
73
74
74
74
76
77
79

6. Implementation of Human Rights
6.1 Introduction
6.2 State of play on representative rights
a. Anti-slavery (Article 4)b. Anti-torture (Article 5)c. Free expression (Article 19) and free association (Article 20)
d. Education (Article 26)
e. Summary

81
81
82
83
84
86
88
90
91
91

6.3 Suggestions on implementation
a. Recommendations for strengthening the UN system on
human rights implementation
i. Implement the recommendations of UN humanrights mechanisms
ii. Enhance the OHCHR’s field presenceiii. Raise human rights concerns for consideration by the
UN Security Council
iv. Limit the UN Security Council veto in the case ofmass atrocities
v. Harness technology to enhance human rights
accountability
b. National and regional legal systemsc. NGOsd. Human rights educationi. The UDHR and human rights education for allii. The UDHR and human rights education since 1948
iii. Transformative human rights education
iv. Advancing transformative human rights education

95
97
97
97
98
99
99

6.4 Sovereignty
a. General (human rights as limits on sovereignty)
b. Sanctions, denunciations, and other measuresc. Responsibility to Protect

100
100
101
102

91
92
93
94
94

7. Human Rights and a Global Ethic

105

Appendices
A The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
B Members of the Commission
C Members of the Philosophers' Committee

109
109
117
131

Online Appendices
D Human Rights Education
E Human Rights Implementation

Glossary

CAT
CEDAW
CRC

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women
Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRPD

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSOs

Civil Society Organizations

GCC

Global Citizenship Commission

EFA

Education for All

GIAS

Global Institute for Advanced Study

HRE

Human Rights Education

ICCPRInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICERD

International Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Racial Discrimination

ICESCRInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
RightsILO

International Labour Organization

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

OHCHR

Office of the High Commission for Human Rights

OPCAT

Optional Protocol to CAT

x

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

The P5

Permanent Members of the Security Council

RtoP

Responsibility to Protect

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UPR

Universal Periodic Review

Introduction
by Gordon Brown

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted
in 1948,1 the world was a very different place. Years of war had left thebetter part of two continents in disarray. A geopolitical reordering saw
an Iron Curtain fall across a continent and a Cold War rise across theglobe. And the world was waking up to the unconscionable horrors ofthe Holocaust. From the ruins of the Second World War came a call toenshrine fundamental human rights.
Facilitating this moment of global introspection was a Philosophers’Committee under the direction of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Committee
enlisted leading thinkers – from Mahatma Gandhi to Aldous Huxley – tocontribute their insights about a proposed Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The work of the Philosophers’ Committee was thenpassed to the UN Human Rights Commission, chaired by Eleanor
Roosevelt, a tireless fighter whose supreme and lasting achievement
was shaping a human rights consensus among the then 58 UN Member
States.
The framers of the Declaration envisaged three parts to the postwar
human rights enterprise: a set of general principles, the codificationof those principles into law, and a practical means of implementation.
Because of the divisions and hostilities of the Cold War, countries could
neither agree on the basis of human rights, nor on how specific rights
should be upheld. So it was that Eleanor Roosevelt could only complete
1	An annotated version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is set out inAppendix A.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.01

2

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

the first task. But owing in large part to her vision and leadership, thenations of the world did issue a historic declaration of human rights – apantheon that for the first time encompassed civil, political, social, andeconomic rights. It is a Universal Declaration that has withstood the testof time.
As the Declaration’s seventieth anniversary nears, we are remindedthat its age has hastened an evolution, bequeathing to us somethingboth inspirational and demanding. Today, the UDHR provides a“common conscience” for humanity. It is a beacon of hope. It is also acall for action, setting a high standard by which we judge the width of
our generosity, the depth of our compassion, and the breadth of ourhumanity. It sends forth a message that injustice anywhere is a threat tojustice everywhere, and that no evil can last forever.
And everywhere we look we are reminded that the Declaration has
stirred civil rights movements and hastened the march of progress. The
words of protestors speaking out against colonialism and apartheid
have been laced with the spirit, and at times the letter, of the Declaration.
Those seeking to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, gender,and sexual orientation have confronted a wall – and a tall one at that – inthe Declaration. Conditions of poverty, illiteracy, and squalor have all
been challenged under the banner of the Declaration. And for thoselike Nelson Mandela, inspired by the sentiments of the Declaration,no intimidation, no show trial, no prison cell – not even the threat of
execution – could ever extinguish their desire to stand for freedom.
This is not to turn a blind eye to injustices that endure; for every
step we take there are two that have yet to be made. Nonetheless, theDeclaration is a proven force for good – both weapon and symbol for
those seeking to give strength to the weak, courage to the fainthearted,
power to the powerless, and voice to the silent. The very existence ofa universal declaration rebukes long-standing, but intellectually feeble
presumptions, that a sovereign state’s treatment of its citizens is thebusiness of that state and that state alone. Time and again the arc ofrecent history has been altered by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The Global Citizenship Commission (GCC), designed to reflect onthat progress and the demands of the future, was born in the classroom.
With the guidance of John Sexton, President of New York University

Introduction3(NYU) from 2002 to 2015, the Commission’s members met in a series ofseminars to discuss the UDHR’s continuing relevance and contribution
to the development of a global ethic.2 We understood we were asking
questions about a new world – a sphere far more interconnected,
integrated, and interdependent than when the Declaration was signed.
More than ever before, the lives of each of us are affected by the livesof all of us. This is the lens through which realities were viewed andquestions shaped. Principally, we focused on how the Declaration isunderstood for those born after 1948, and thus into a world where theserights are known. In parallel, discussions with UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon stressed the centrality of individual citizens’ rights and theneed for a strong educational foundation. This dual emphasis, reflected
throughout our report, accords with Eleanor Roosevelt’s statement that
ideals “carry no weight unless the people know them, unless the people
understand them, unless the people demand that they be lived.”
Drawing on the Declaration’s own history, the Commission borroweda page from the UDHR and convened a Philosophers’ Committee.3
Its work informed the deliberations of a global working group ofscholars, led by the highly-respected Professor Jeremy Waldron. The
Philosophers’ Committee’s analysis provided the academic foundation
for a meaningful examination of the UDHR, and I join the Commission
in thanking these scholars for their pioneering work.
In light of the Philosophers’ Committee’s analysis, the Commission’sreport first considers how our understanding of human rights has
evolved. We then move on to identify specific rights requiring
more emphasis than they received in the Declaration, if they wereacknowledged at all. As one might expect, the rights of women, children,
the disabled, and the LGBT community require further attention and a
deepened global commitment. What is more, in a world where 60 million
individuals are displaced from their homes and 20 million are refugees,
the rights of migrants and stateless persons have become once again – aswas true in the upheavals following the Second World War – a matter ofvital importance. The report also examines what justification there canever be for derogations of rights, how we combine civil and political2	The members of the Commission are set out in Appendix B.
3	The members of the Philosophers’ Committee are set out in Appendix C.

4The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

rights with social and economic rights, and who must ultimately takeresponsibility for upholding the UDHR as a global ethic – as a covenant.
These questions were flanked by a recognition of reality – the hard
data proving there is much work to be done. Discussions with theSecretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid
Ra’ad Al Hussein, and my own experiences as UN Special Envoy for
Global Education convinced me that a balanced Commission report
should address failures of implementation. This is, in a real sense, theunfinished work of Eleanor Roosevelt’s commission. Even after almost
seventy years, the question of how we protect enshrined rights has
never been answered comprehensively.
The Commission’s report is a reminder of what is at stake.
Accordingly, we advance recommendations that highlight the urgent
need to strengthen human rights in the twenty-first century. Some
recommendations call for upholding specific rights in new ways, suchas our proposal urging the international community to adopt a more
far-reaching convention on refugees and migrants and our call for an
International Children’s Court. Other recommendations call attention
to deeper, structural issues, including our conclusion that countries
may not hide behind the thin veil of national sovereignty as a pretext
for insulating themselves from external human rights pressures. We
advocate enhancing the UN’s system for upholding and advancing
human rights with a proposal that Security Council members voluntarilysuspend veto rights in situations involving mass atrocities.
I am honored to have chaired the Global Citizenship Commission.
I am profoundly grateful to each Commissioner for making thisreport, and its proposals, possible. Over two years, the Commission
met in Edinburgh, Bonn, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and New York – all while
holding global consultations drawing on counsel and expertise from
China, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. During the life of theCommission, we endeavored – through public dialogues and external
consultation – to include a broad range of perspectives. All of this has
been made possible by the generous support of New York University,
the Carnegie UK Trust, the University of Edinburgh, the Universityof Bonn, and the NYU Global Institute for Advanced Study (GIAS),
chaired by Paul Boghossian who has been an ever-present influence forgood. We are grateful to the Director of Research and Secretary to theIntroduction

5Commission, Andrew Hilland, and our Staff Directors Melissa Friesen
and Michael Patullo, all of whom carried the burden of servicing ourwork for two years. And we owe a special debt of gratitude to Executive
Director Diane Yu who managed this process, and Robert Shrum for his
guidance in drafting the Commission’s report. I want to thank all those
who helped make this report possible, including the individuals andinstitutions mentioned in the Acknowledgments.
Voices at the margins must come alive. For this reason, I believe thisreport can make a valuable contribution to contemporary debates. We
write of course from a comfortable vantage point – from a promontory.
Wherever we direct our gaze, we are bound to find broken refugees,
oppressed children, and enslaved women. We see them and, in turn,
hope they see us and demand action. I do not expect our report tobe, like the Declaration itself, timeless. But I do hope it will be timely,
holding high once again the challenge posed to each successive
generation – to do better and achieve more. The Commission is insistentthat rights imply responsibilities. In securing certain rights, and seeking
to enshrine others, we are constantly reminded of both how far theworld has come and how much farther we must go. For we must neverforget that the global condition of human rights – civil, political, social,and economic – is the yardstick with which we measure humanity’s
progress.
Gordon Brown
Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
UN Special Envoy for Global Education

Prefaceby Paul BoghossianThis report by the Global Citizenship Commission is the first of the
Global Institute for Advanced Study’s major initiatives to be brought
to fruition. It gives me great pride that the Institute’s inauguralachievement is represented by such an important document.
The GIAS is a nascent initiative at New York University that helps
support innovative and (typically) interdisciplinary scholarly workrequiring collaboration on an international scale and with a sustained,
multi-year focus. Conceived in conversations between (then) ViceChancellor Richard Foley and me, and with the crucial support ofPresident John Sexton and Provost David McLaughlin, it was launchedin 2011. All three of these leaders of NYU deserve thanks for their
willingness to invest significant resources in encouraging unusual,risky, but potentially transformative work.
When Gordon Brown approached me in 2012 with his idea toconvene a commission that would study the continuing relevance to ourtime of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its contribution
to the development of a global ethic, it struck me both as an enormously
important idea and as a perfect fit for the mission of the Global Institute.
After some discussion, Gordon and I agreed that it would be best if
the project were to proceed in two phases. In the first, a distinguishedcommittee of academics – philosophers, political theorists, andhuman rights lawyers – would lay the intellectual groundwork for thecommission’s report by providing a detailed analytical commentary on
the UDHR. In the second phase, a blue ribbon commission, chaired byGordon, would use the findings of this “Philosophers’ Committee” to© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.02

8

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

develop a report that would be presented, at his request, to Ban Ki-moon,
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and distributed widely.
The road to the successful completion of this report has been a longone, involving three meetings of the Philosophers’ Committee, six
meetings of the Global Citizenship Commission, and countless meetingsof the Commission’s Steering Committee, which I chaired. I am gratefulto Professors Michael Forster and Markus Gabriel for hosting ourmeetings in Bonn, Germany. I want especially to thank the membersof the Steering Committee, Anthony Appiah, Emma Rothschild, Robert
Shrum, Jeremy Waldron, and Diane Yu, for their hard work between
meetings of the full Commission that made progress at those meetings
possible. Andrew Hilland and Melissa Friesen provided indispensable
support.
I am very grateful to Professor Jeremy Waldron of NYU’s Law
School for accepting our invitation to lead the Philosophers’ Committee.
Jeremy assembled a superb panel of scholars, and worked tirelessly in
all its different phases to bring this report into existence.
I am also immensely grateful to Gordon Brown for entrusting thisimportant project to the GIAS, for his unflagging enthusiasm andenergy for it, and, in general, for his unwavering dedication to making
the world a better place.
Paul Boghossian,Director, GIAS
Julius Silver Professor of Philosophy
NYU

Acknowledgments

The Global Institute for Advanced Study at New York University and
the NYU Office of the President were pleased to provide academic,
financial, and administrative support for the work of the Global
Citizenship Commission, from the first meeting of the Philosophers’Committee in the fall of 2012 to the present day. The vision of Gordon
Brown in undertaking this vital work for submission to UN SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon has inspired all of us, and we hope that The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century will make aprofound and lasting impact.
As Executive Director of the Commission, I wish to acknowledge
a number of individuals and institutions that helped make thisreport possible. I am grateful to the members of the Philosophers’Committee – and its Chair, Jeremy Waldron – whose brilliant analysis
provided the academic underpinning of the report. I want to thank the
GCC Steering Committee, in which I had the pleasure of participating
alongside the Committee Chair, Paul Boghossian, and members
Anthony Appiah, Emma Rothschild, Robert Shrum, and Jeremy
Waldron. Melissa Friesen (2014–2016) and Michael Patullo (2013–2014)served as Staff Directors to the Commission, providing outstanding
administrative and logistical support to Commission Chair Gordon
Brown and the Commissioners. Andrew Hilland, Director of Researchand Secretary to the Commission, was invaluable in helping to produce
the final version of the report. In addition, this report would not havebeen possible without the support of John Sexton and Andrew Hamilton,
the immediate past and current Presidents of NYU, respectively.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.03

10

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

I am grateful for the assistance and support of the following people
in hosting meetings and public-facing events of the GCC: Timothy
O’Shea (Principal, University of Edinburgh), Charlie Jeffery (VicePrincipal for Public Policy and Impact, University of Edinburgh),
and Martyn Evans (Chief Executive, Carnegie Trust UK) for theCommission’s meeting in Edinburgh in October 2013; Jürgen Fohrmann(former Rector, University of Bonn), Michael Forster (Alexander von
Humboldt Professor, Chair for Theoretical Philosophy, and Co-Directorof the International Center for Philosophy, University of Bonn), Markus
Gabriel (Chair for Epistemology and Co-Director of the International
Center for Philosophy, University of Bonn), Dieter Sturma (Chair for
Philosophy of Ethics and the Biosciences and Director of the Institutefor Science and Politics, University of Bonn), and Stefan Zimmermann(International Center for Philosophy, University of Bonn) for theCommission’s meeting in Bonn in May 2014; and Klaus Schwab(Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum), Alfred
Bloom (Vice Chancellor, NYU Abu Dhabi), Fabio Piano (Provost, NYU
Abu Dhabi), Reindert Falkenburg, Gila Bessarat Waels, Antoine El
Khayat, Nora Yousef, Nils Lewis, and Danielle Cherubin (of the NYU
Abu Dhabi Institute) for the Commission’s meetings in Abu Dhabi
and Dubai in November 2014. The assistance of NYU administrators
John Beckman, Regina Drew, and Gregory Albanis from the Office ofUniversity Relations and Public Affairs in mounting the public forum
in New York in April 2016 was also much appreciated.
I want to thank the Center on Global Justice (University of California,
San Diego), of which Commissioner Fonna Forman is Founding
Co-Director, for undertaking comprehensive research and analysis on
human rights implementation and human rights education. In particular,
I am grateful to the implementation research team, which was supervised
by Sean Morgan and also included John Gotti, Vanessa Lodermeier,Mike Nicholson, and John Porten. I am also grateful to Monisha Bajaj,
Ben Cislaghi, and Gerry Mackie, who authored the Online Appendix
D to this report,1 Advancing Transformative Human Rights Education, andto Commissioner Andrew Forrest and the Minderoo Foundation forproviding material support for their work.
1	Online Appendix D, on Human Rights Education, is available at https://www.
openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783742189#resourcesAcknowledgments11

We have benefitted immensely from the input and advice of UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, and anarray of lawyers from his office, including Gianni Magazzeni (Chief of
the Americas, Europe and Central Asia Branch, Field Operations andTechnical Cooperation Division) and Mona Rishmawi (Rule of Law and
Democracy Section). Zainab Hawa Bangura, United Nations UnderSecretary-General and Special Representative of the Secretary-Generalon Sexual Violence in Conflict, participated in the deliberations of theCommission. Aung San Suu Kyi was a member of the Commission
but due to events in Myanmar was unable to contribute to our final
deliberations. Finally, we have been fortunate to be able to draw on
the expertise of Philip Alston (NYU Law School), Itai Madamombe(Assistant to the UN Secretary-General), Dimitrina Petrova (Founding
Executive Director, Equal Rights Trust), Michael Posner (Co-Director,
NYU Stern’s Center for Business and Human Rights), and Michael
Sandel (Harvard University, Department of Government).
Diane C. Yu
GCC Executive Director
Counselor to Leadership and Executive Director
Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Community Programs at NYU Abu Dhabi

Executive Summary

The Long and Influential Life of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a monumental
embodiment for our time of the ancient idea that we all belong to asingle global community, and that each human being has moral ties andresponsibilities to all others.
From the start, endorsed and adopted in 1948 by most Member Statesof the UN, the Declaration has been a beacon and a standard, its influenceboth wide and deep. The UDHR has been and is an unprecedented
educational and cultural force, making people conversant with theidea of human rights, providing a widely accepted text enumerating
those rights, delivering an articulate focus for what might otherwise
be timid and inarticulate concerns, and sending out a message that an
injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Today, the UDHR,
translated into 350 languages, is the best-known and most often citedhuman rights document on Earth. By setting out, for the first time,
fundamental rights to be universally protected, it is a milestone in thehistory of human interactions and the cause of human rights.
The Global Citizenship Commission both affirms the continuing
relevance and inspirational force of the UDHR and seeks further
recognition and respect for human rights for all citizens of the world, inlight of developments in the twenty-first century. The social, political,
and legal environment has been transformed since 1948, and our global© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.04

14

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

interconnectedness and dependence have diminished our moral distance.
Yet as a living document, the UDHR demands renewed attention andspeaks urgently to the issues of today. In this report, we assess the life todate of the UDHR: its foundational principles, its profound impact, andits legacy. We consider the evolving understanding of human rights
and identify certain rights that were not addressed specifically in the1948 document but that arguably reflect our understanding of rights
today. We examine the issues of limitations and derogations, social andeconomic rights, where the responsibility for upholding human rights
lies, and – critically – implementation.
The cornerstone of the Declaration is the concept of human dignity:“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justiceand peace in the world.” Sadly, for millions of people, the recognition of
their inherent dignity is far from a reality. To us, this speaks not of the
failure of the UDHR but of the need to keep re-examining the relevanceof these standards, and to continue to challenge ourselves to find betterways to achieve our shared goal of a common human dignity.

The Evolving Understanding of Rights
Globalization has changed the terms of interaction in global life, and it
has created space both for implicit extensions of and explicit additions tothe content of human rights doctrine. Since 1948 there have been many
important human rights conventions that have addressed some of theissues we identify. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize a numberof rights that we think have come into clearer focus after seventy years
and need more emphasis than they received in the Declaration. These
fall into three broad categories.
First, the rights of members of specific groups, comprising the rights
of women; the rights of children; the rights of the disabled, including
the profoundly disabled; rights related to sexual orientation; and therights of prisoners.
Second, the rights of groups as such, comprising the right to national
self-determination, including regional autonomy and subsidiarity; therights of indigenous peoples; the prohibition against ethnic cleansing;Executive Summary15

and the rights of peoples prejudiced at the national or communal levelby climate change.
Third, rights related to other issues affecting vital interests,
comprising migration; statelessness; administrative justice; corruption;
privacy from state or corporate electronic surveillance; access to theInternet and electronic communication on a global scale; extreme
poverty and deep inequality; healthcare; and a safe, clean, healthy, andsustainable environment.
Each of these issues demands the international community’s
attention, some because of the need for a clear articulation andrecognition of rights and all because of the need to take concrete steps
to ensure their implementation. For example, on the issue of migration,
the Commission recommends that the international community
urgently:
Implement Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10.7, which
calls for states to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible
migration and mobility of people, including through theimplementation of planned and well-managed migration
policies.”
Strengthen the international refugee protection system.
 onsider adopting a new international convention on refugeesCand migrants.
And to ensure the protection of the rights of children, we recommendthat: he international community support the creation of a Children’sT
Court, with the power to receive and adjudicate petitions fromchildren and their representatives on violations of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, to issue legally binding judgments, andto investigate areas of concern such as child labor, child slavery,
and child marriage.
 he International Criminal Court investigates and prosecutesT
crimes against children within its remit to the full extent of the
law.

16

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

 he UN Security Council convenes a “Children’s Council” – anTannual review on children’s rights, building on its existing debateof the plight of children in armed conflict.
 t the national level, all states create accessible complaintAmechanisms for the resolution of violations of the rights ofchildren, and consider establishing a Youth Parliament, Children’s
Commissioner, and dedicated budget for Children.

Limitations and Derogations
Article 29(2) of the UDHR sets out the circumstances in which limitations
on individual rights are permissible. The Declaration as a whole should
be read as the assertion of a strong presumption in favor of humanrights and Article 29(2) should be read as placing the burden of proof
on anyone who seeks to limit them.
Unlike the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights (ICCPR) makes separate and extensive provision forthe derogation of rights in national and/or international emergencies.
However, the increasing reliance in the modern world on long-term,
continuous states of emergency as justifications for human rights
derogations is not dealt with adequately by the ICCPR’s formulations,as they envisage relatively short-term, clearly demarcated emergencies.
The international community should develop standards governing
long-term derogations of human rights in national or international
emergencies, to ensure that this process is not abused.
In recent years, there have been military interventions that
contravene the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. And states
have responded to the rise and persistence of international terrorism by
employing tactics of surveillance, detention of suspects, and targetedkilling. The Commission emphasizes that each of these developments
raises human rights issues, and calls on the international community
to develop standards governing the use of force and the response tointernational terrorism that are derived from current conceptions andenduring foundations of human rights.
Lastly, it is critical to take a comprehensive approach to terrorismthat encompasses not only essential security-based counter-terrorism

Executive Summary

17

measures, but also systematic preventative measures that address theroot causes of violent extremism. These include lack of socioeconomic
opportunities; marginalization and discrimination; poor governance;
violations of human rights and the rule of law; prolonged andunresolved conflicts; and radicalization in prisons. The creation of open,
equitable, inclusive, and pluralist societies, founded on the full respectof human rights and with economic opportunities for all, represents themost tangible and meaningful alternative to violent extremism and themost promising strategy for undermining its appeal.

Social and Economic Rights
Social and economic rights are vital. They reflect genuine human needs
that every state has an obligation to attend to, within existing resources,in the interest of all those committed to their care. We think it is fitting
and valuable that the UDHR enshrined social and economic rights inthe same document as civil and political rights, and thus to perceive
human rights as a whole in the context of a single declaration.
The social and economic provisions of the UDHR should beinterpreted to mean that everyone is entitled to certain minimum
standards of health, education, and social security. The concept ofdignity – while abstract – provides a yardstick against which to set
minimum measures. The extent of available resources in each society is
one determinative factor, though the UDHR also imposes constraints on
the allocation of such resources as there are. The Commission believes
that the UDHR (and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)) should be read as endorsing an ongoing
global conversation about what the minimum provision should be
and a rule of progress to the effect that the human rights framework
calls for steps to improve the position of everyone, including the least
advantaged in society.
States have front-line responsibility for the social and economic
well-being of their citizens. Fair economic growth has a critical role toplay in this, and the Commission believes it is crucial to see a stronger
connection between economic policy and the instruments of humanrights. It is evident, however, that the challenges faced by many states

18

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

cannot be resolved entirely by actions in those states alone. There isan overwhelming moral case for interpreting the social and economic
rights provisions of the Declaration as placing obligations on theinternational community to alleviate world poverty. International
aid and transfers, aimed at strengthening the capacity of recipient
states to secure the social and economic rights of their citizens, thus
have an indispensable role to play. Responsibilities among theinternational community to uphold social and economic rights are in
the Commission’s view held not only by states, but also above thelevel of states by international organizations and below the level ofstates by corporations and individuals.
It is sometimes said that, although the rights in the Declaration arepresented as an interconnected body of principles, complementaryand mutually supportive, there are in fact serious conflicts among
them. It is sometimes argued, for example, that the rights to freedomof speech or assembly may conflict with the right of people not to livein poverty, that the only way to lift large numbers of people out ofpoverty may involve authoritarian rule. In certain very specific realworld settings, our ability to fully implement one right may conflictwith our ability to fully implement another, at least temporarily.
However, any such claim would be very hard to establish and must
always be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, it isalways a serious question whether any particular proposed trade-off
is morally justifiable.

Responsibility for Human Rights
The UDHR does not specify who carries the responsibilities
corresponding to the rights it enumerates. Yet the role of states remains
essential. Given the realities of our world – this was even more the casein 1948 – states must be regarded as the main guarantors of the rights of
their own citizens. The laws and national constitutions of states, in most
instances, will be the first recourse to address any violations of humanrights, and should be regarded as the ordinary mode of implementation.
In a globalized world, it is also the duty of each state to concern itself
to a certain extent with the human rights of persons outside its borders.

Executive Summary19

While states have the primary responsibility for ensuring the humanrights of their citizens, there are numerous examples of situations where
governments no longer control substantial tracts of territory, no longer
control the military or have a monopoly on force, lack legitimacy, andare unable or unwilling to provide public services. In these situations,who is responsible for the human rights of the population? This issue
needs to be urgently addressed by the international community.
The fact that one entity – like a state – has responsibility for agiven right is quite compatible with other entities also having theirown obligations. Rights generate waves of responsibility, and those
responsibilities may fall on an array of duty-bearers. Though national
state responsibility is primary, sub-national governments, international
institutions, corporations, and private persons each and all havea common duty to ensure recognition of human rights and accept
responsibility to secure them. Rights-bearers themselves also have
responsibilities with respect to their own rights and responsibilities asrights-bearers to the rights system as a whole and to society generally.
It would be a mistake to develop a rigid or closed model of
responsibility for rights, or to conclude that rights are of no value until
responsibilities are actually specified. The advantage of specifying
rights first is that this provides a basis for thinking about the duties ofthe state and other entities. The Commission has judged that it is bothsensible and essential to retain an open and developing sense of where
responsibilities lie, since the environment in which rights have to besatisfied is constantly changing.

Implementation of Human Rights
State of play on representative rights
In our examination of the implementation of select rights in the
Declaration – the anti-slavery provision; the anti-torture provision;
the free expression provision and the free association provision; andthe education provision – a number of themes emerged. First, the
UDHR represents the founding document in a process of progressive

20

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

elaboration of human rights. Second, historic progress has been madein the promotion and protection of rights since 1948, including thedevelopment of a body of human rights law and implementation
mechanisms that simply could not have been envisioned in the
1920s and 1930s. Third, despite the gains, we must recognize andrespond to the reality that human rights continue to be violated on an
alarming scale across the globe. Fourth, the fullness of human rights
will only be achieved through multiple overlapping and coordinatedmechanisms – that operate at both the international and national
levels, and which engage both governmental and non-governmental
institutions.

Suggestions on implementation
The Commission analyzes and advances recommendations in respectof four areas.

UN system of human rights implementation
The Commission supports a number of existing proposals for improving
the UN system for the protection of human rights. We call on the UN
to establish a commission to consider these and other proposals forrealizing Article 28 of the Declaration.
 he UN should seek to ensure that the problems and priorities
T
identified through UN human rights mechanisms command
sufficient attention and action from the international community
and the UN as a whole, including its security and development
endeavors.
 he UN should expand the Office of the UN High Commissioner
T
for Human Rights’ regional and country field presence andsignificantly raise financial support for priority human rights
activities.

Executive Summary21

 he UN Secretary-General should exercise his or her powerTunder Article 99 of the UN Charter to raise human rights issues
for consideration by the Security Council whenever advised to
do so by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special
Procedures of the Human Rights Council, or the heads of thehuman rights components of UN peace missions.
 he permanent members of the UN Security Council should
T
voluntarily suspend their veto rights in situations involving mass
atrocities.
 he UN should consider ways in which new forms of technology
T
can amplify human rights accountability.

National and regional legal systems
The judiciary has a pivotal role to play in upholding human rights. Only
an independent judiciary can render justice impartially on the basisof law, thereby assuring the rights and fundamental freedoms of theindividual. On this basis:he international community must redouble its resolve toTsafeguard and enhance the independence and effectivenessof judiciaries worldwide, in line with existing international
principles of the rule of law.
 he international community should aim to bolster the role ofT
existing regional human rights courts and also encourage thedevelopment of new regional human rights courts by the Leagueof Arab States and in Asia and the Pacific. All UN Member Statesshould agree to submit themselves to the authority of international
tribunals whose jurisdiction can appropriately – geographicallyor otherwise – be extended to them.
 t the global level, the UN should consider the creation of aA
World Human Rights Court, consistent with the principle ofcomplementarity.

22

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Non-governmental organizations
Non-governmental organizations play a frontline role in highlighting
the importance of the rights protected in the UDHR, in drawing
attention to shortcomings in their implementation, and in naming
and shaming governments that are guilty of violations or of failingto protect their citizens from human rights abuses. In light of this, it
is especially important that states make reasonable accommodation
for NGOs aiming to promote, protect, and investigate violations ofhuman rights.

Human rights education
Human rights education also has an indispensable role to play.
Fostering a universal culture of human rights among all individuals
and institutions through transformative human rights education“from the bottom-up” can add important impetus to the adoption andenforcement of legal standards by governments “from the top-down.”
The Commission calls on all governments, international organizations,and NGOs to encourage and support transformative human rights
education.

Sovereignty
The era of human rights that was initiated by the UDHR has disposedof any notion of state sovereignty that purports to insulate states fromexternal criticism of internal rights violations. One principle the UDHR
represents, and rightly so, is that human rights in every country are theworld’s business. The Commission wishes to affirm: first, that countries
may not misuse their national sovereignty as an excuse for insulating
themselves from external pressure on human rights; and second, that
it is legitimate for states to raise human rights issues in conducting
foreign relations.
The international community needs a toolkit of governmental
and multilateral responses to rights violations that is more legitimate

Executive Summary23and more sophisticated than we have today, and which relies onmechanisms other than the use of force. There are many instruments ofchange used: some widely acknowledged, like trade sanctions; some farless recognized, such as human rights “name and shame” mechanisms;
and others perhaps less clearly articulated, such as providing shelter tomigrants fleeing from neighboring countries in times of great distress.
We recommend that a study be undertaken of what governments dowhen they genuinely want to seek to change another government’s
behavior, and what governments are susceptible to in terms of realworld pressures on human rights.
The Commission supports the concept of the Responsibility to Protect(RtoP) governing the process of humanitarian intervention. However,intervention under the auspices of RtoP will be far from regular and will
be appropriate only in the case of egregious and widespread humanrights violations. The violation of rights, the erosion of rights, or the
failure to fulfill rights are matters of concern, even when they are notwidespread. Any time a violation occurs – which may affect one personor one thousand – we must take notice. Underpinning this imperativeis the principle that the violation of the rights of anyone is the concernof everyone.

Human Rights and a Global Ethic
The promulgation of the UDHR in 1948 made a difference in how
people saw their place in the world and their relations with their state
and with each other. This is in itself a valuable contribution, quite apartfrom the securing of the rights actually listed in the document. Overthe decades since 1948, the UDHR has provided the rudiments of a“common conscience” for humanity. In the words of Immanuel Kant, aviolation of rights in any place is now felt all around the world. Theinternational community is continuing to build on this, and the UDHR
should be regarded as one of the pillars of an emerging global ethic for
our increasingly interdependent world.

Preamble

Across the ages, people of different religions, civilizations, and politicalorders have advanced the ideal that each human being has moral ties
and responsibilities to all others. And for three quarters of a century andmore, in a world increasingly and globally interconnected, the humanfamily has witnessed new and path-breaking initiatives to articulate andexpand the summons of this ideal. Among the most vital and powerfulof these endeavors is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
From the start, endorsed and adopted by most Member States of theUnited Nations, the Declaration has been a beacon and a standard, its
influence both wide and deep. It is a living document that demands
renewed recognition and speaks urgently to the issues of today – eventhough states and others may repeatedly flout or fall short of the rights
and norms it expresses.
We, the members of the Global Citizenship Commission, undertook
our exploration of the Declaration, its legacy, and its promise with open
minds. We were determined to learn from one another, with our distinct
beliefs and our disparate places of origin, and ready to account for the
weaknesses as well as the strengths of the Declaration and the modern
human rights system for which it is a life force. We have discoveredin our multinational collaboration that working together to reflect on
the UDHR and its writ, its reach, and its impact has reaffirmed ourfaith in its stirring invocation of “the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” as “thefoundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world […]” There ismuch more to be done to fully secure the rights and more effectively© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.05

26

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

carry out the responsibilities that are essential to the work of making
real the ideals of the UDHR. Hideous and systemic human rights
abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate across the world.
Sadly, too many people, so many of them in authority, are hostile tohuman rights or indifferent to their claims – or willing to devalue themas secondary issues. This makes it all the more imperative to reassert
our firm belief in the call of the UDHR as a central mission for all theworld.
Most of this report involves a detailed discussion of the UDHR and
its enduring relevance for today. But we begin by elaborating the senseof global community and global ethics in which both the Declarationand our discussions are grounded.
The idea that every human being is part of a seamless human fabric,a single global community, bound by moral ties to every other humanbeing, is as ancient as recorded history. Confucius, born in the sixth
century BCE in Lu State, China, conceived of “all under heaven” as thewidest span of moral concern; two centuries later, Diogenes of Sinope,
a Greek settlement on the southern coast of the Black Sea, declaredthat he was a citizen of the cosmos, of the entire earth. The Abrahamic
faiths – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are all rooted in the conceptthat every human being is the creation of a loving God who cares for
us and commands us to care for one another. Buddhism and Hinduism
enshrine the interconnectedness of all creatures, the view of a sharedhumanity is voiced in the Southern African notion of Ubuntu, and thesame fundamental insight is found in the traditions of peoples on every
continent. There is, in short, a global understanding that, in the truest
sense, we are a single human family.
None of these separate traditions, however, proposed a commitment
to a global community resting on the creation of a single world
government. And neither do we. Historically, each held that moral
duties were strongest toward those to whom we were closest. As concern
moved out from friends and families, moral obligations were attenuated.
There were special obligations to those with whom we shared a state,
but there were still real and significant obligations to others with whom
we did not. This duty to care is the basis for citizenship – local or global.
The idea of global citizenship does not, then, exclude citizenshipin a nation or state, or membership in a family or a local community.

Preamble



27

Indeed, it presupposes that we have significant moral connections at
all three levels. As a Commission on Global Citizenship, our charge has
been to reflect on what it is for each of us to be members of a global
community and, in particular, what each of us owes to all others
everywhere. But recognizing that we are all members of a single humancommunity – citizens, as Diogenes put it, of the entire earth – is notjust a matter of articulating rights and duties. It involves approachingeach other with an attitude of respect and concern, treating each humanbeing as someone who seeks and deserves to live a life of dignity, alife imbued with significance. For global citizenship to have practicalmeaning, we believe it is indispensable for us to come to a common
appreciation of these basic ideas.
The need for a shared comprehension of our moral connections
has become more and more pressing in the past century as the world
has become more and more interdependent. Goods, money, diseases,
pollutants, and ideas: all move across the globe more swiftly andsweepingly than ever, whether by ship or by plane, whether in thecurrents of the oceans and the atmosphere or electronically throughthe revolutionary media of our time, including, of course, the World
Wide Web. Our ecological interconnections – through climate change
and global epidemics, for example – require us each to join together toovercome challenges that have an impact on us all, and on the prospectsof generations yet unborn. Global economic realities, and especiallythe persistence of extreme poverty, confront us with problems thatare practical as well as moral challenges, which we can only meet andmaster in common cause.
In the decades since the Second World War, the UDHR stands as amonumental embodiment of that ancient idea that we all belong to asingle global community and that all of us must do our part to ensurethat every human being can live a life of dignity. With the endorsementof the nations of the world, the Declaration expressed the idea of thehuman family as a globally shared ideal. Article 1 speaks to the firstprinciple that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity andrights.” Article 2 holds that “everyone is entitled to all the rights andfreedoms set forth in this Declaration” without exception.
The notion of global citizenship can be empowering to every
individual in the world, particularly when those suffering learn of its

28

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

attachment to a set of basic human rights that are far more than they
could have imagined. For this reason, we decided that exploring thecontinuing role and relevance of the UDHR was the best starting point
for developing a common contemporary understanding of the meaningof global citizenship. That ambition is the guiding purpose of this report.

1. The Long and Influential Lifeof the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights

1.1 History of the UDHR
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged from the ashes of
the Second World War. With the end of the conflict, and the creation of
the United Nations, the international community vowed never again toabide the unspeakable atrocities the world had just witnessed. So theleaders of the world decided to amplify the UN Charter by enshrining
and encouraging guarantees for the rights of human beings everywhere.
In 1946, as part of the preliminary work of drafting the Declaration,
under the auspices of UNESCO, Jacques Maritain assembled a
Philosophers’ Committee to identify key theoretical issues in framinga charter of rights for all peoples and all nations. The work of thePhilosophers’ Committee then moved to the UN Commission on
Human Rights. At its first session in January 1947, the Commission
authorized its members to formulate what it termed “a preliminary
draft international bill of human rights.” Later the work was takenover by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of theCommission from eight states. The Commission on Human Rights
comprised 18 members from various political, cultural, and religious
backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin D.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.06

30

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Roosevelt, chaired the Commission. It also included René Cassin ofFrance, who composed the first draft of the declaration; Commission
Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon; Vice-Chairman Peng Chung
Chang of China; and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s
Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint.
The Commission had to resolve issues of fundamental importance.
First, it concluded that the right mission was to develop a declaration,rather than a treaty. The Commission’s view was that the declaration
should be relatively short, inspirational, energizing, and broadly
accessible to peoples everywhere: the defining document of aninternational bill of human rights. It also decided that the declaration
should encompass both civil and political rights, on the one hand, andsocial and economic rights, on the other.
Cassin handed his draft of the declaration to a meeting of theCommission on Human Rights in Geneva. Thus this version, which
was sent to all UN Member States for comment, became known as the“Geneva draft.” The Commission revised the Geneva draft to reflect
the replies it had received from Member States, before submitting it to
the General Assembly. The General Assembly in turn scrutinized the
document between September and December of 1948, with over 50
Member States voting a total of 1,400 times on practically every clauseand virtually every word of the text. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10
December 1948, the General Assembly, meeting in Paris, voted to adopt
the UDHR with eight nations abstaining but none dissenting.1 It wasan historic moment, and the General Assembly called upon all Member
States to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to bedisseminated, displayed, read, and expounded principally in schools1	The following 48 countries voted in favor of the Declaration: Afghanistan,
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq,
Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam, Sweden, Syria,
Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The following
eight countries abstained: the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR,
People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People’s Republic of Poland, Union ofSouth Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Honduras andYemen – both members of the UN at the time – failed to vote or abstain.

1. The Long and Influential Life of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights 31

and other educational institutions, without distinction based on thepolitical status of countries or territories.”
The UDHR formed the basis for two covenants which were adopted
by the General Assembly in 1966: the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. These Covenants have binding status ininternational law. The Declaration and the Covenants are collectively
known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.”
Today, the Universal Declaration, translated into 350 languages, isthe best-known and most often cited human rights document on Earth.
By setting out, for the first time, fundamental rights to be universally
protected, it is a milestone in the history of human interactions and thecause of human rights.

1.2 Affirming and protecting the UDHR
Given that the UDHR is best understood as a living enterprise thatchallenges each new generation to new actions to fulfill and extend its
writ, the aim of the Commission has been to assess what needs to beunderstood and undertaken in the twenty-first century to realize thehigh ideals of the UDHR, and to reinforce its status as a foundational
document of global citizenship. Therefore, the Commission not only
celebrates the framers of the Declaration – together with all those whohave worked so hard over the years to sustain it – but, in that spirit, we
also set forth issues on which we believe the international community
should focus in renewing the 1948 enterprise for our day and generation.
So the Commission both affirms the UDHR and seeks to further
recognition and respect for human rights for all citizens of the world, inthe life and light of the twenty-first century. The intention of our report
is not to rewrite or revise the UDHR. Rather, what we have learned andshare here should be regarded as an analytical commentary that reflects
changed circumstances and progress in our moral thought since the firstdays of the Declaration. The report further observes that individuals,
states, and other entities each and all have a common duty to ensure
recognition of human rights and accept responsibility to secure them.

32

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

1.3 The changing context
The social, political, and legal environment has been transformed since1948. It is impossible to list all the changes, but many are of sweeping
and particular importance. Decolonization, the breakup of old empires,and the emergence of new states mean that there are 193 UN Member
States today, compared to the 58 of 1948. Some would say that states
have risen and then declined in importance since 1948. Certainly inrecent years the growth in the number of states has been matched by
the growth of new centers of authority, and by an increase in the powerof non-state actors.
Our global interdependence now plays a central and often contentious
role: globalization is a major phenomenon in economics and trade as
well as politics, culture, communications, and technology. International
institutions have far greater sway in world affairs than they did in 1948,
both those associated with the United Nations itself and those that holdan independent status. There is more and more awareness too of global
challenges such as climate change. New patterns of life and economic
development have emerged, as have new patterns of migration andinequality.
In 1948, the memory of the Second World War was fresh ineveryone’s minds. Since then new forms of conflict have emerged: theCold War dominated the period between the 1950s and 1980s; today
armed conflict frequently involves non-state actors; and there is theprolonged struggle against terrorism. Along with such new forms ofconflict have come new formulations of international responsibilities
such as the Responsibility to Protect.
We have been able to reconsider the UDHR after 70 years not only
in light of these changed circumstances, but also in the context of theundeniable truth that global interconnectedness and dependence havediminished our moral distance from each other.

1.4 The enduring relevance of the UDHR
One of the tasks of the Commission is to apply the abstract language of
the Declaration to the reality of the twenty-first century. The question
we should ask is not what the framers of the UDHR would have thought

1. The Long and Influential Life of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights 33

about a particular issue in 1948. Instead, the question is what we should
think now, in the world of today, animated by the same principles thatanimated the framers then.
The UDHR purports to offer a shared basis for comprehending boththe idea of human rights itself and the array of human rights that theidea implies. Specifically, the Declaration presents what the Preamble
calls a “common understanding” of human rights and represents what
the Proclamation Clause calls “a common standard of achievement
for all peoples and all nations.” We believe that the assertion of a“common understanding” of human rights and “a common standard ofachievement for all peoples and all nations” was a vital step in 1948 andwe believe it remains equally vital in the twenty-first century.
Part of that vitality is that the clauses of the UDHR provide a tangible
focus of orientation; so that when people debate human rights thereis less chance of talking in circles or at cross-purposes. Even if people
disagree with the UDHR’s formulations, the formulations neverthelesshelp to structure their disagreements and arguments. More than that,
however, the Declaration embodies a set of common expectations forthe dealings of nations and peoples with one another, so far as theproper treatment of individuals is concerned. It makes apparent that
this is a subject on which firm, explicit, and reasonably clear standards
have been publicly laid down. Having this common point of reference
has been of immeasurable political importance in both large-scale andsmall-scale campaigns to protect peoples and individuals from abuses.
Here we have in mind large-scale campaigns like the articulation ofhuman rights in the Helsinki movement from 1975, as well as smallscale, even village-level, campaigns in various parts of the world.
Most of all, the UDHR gives substance to the idea that there actuallyis such a thing as a “common conscience” for mankind. One of themost fundamental things that human rights declarations and humanrights law can do is to establish certain taboos around serious abuses
and violations. Quite apart from enforcement, this is a matter of culture
and positive morality. It is essential that those who abuse individuals
should recognize that there is something called “human rights” thatthey are violating, and that both those who suffer abuses and those
who observe them should have a common and publicly recognizedvocabulary in which to express denunciation of this conduct and toorganize resistance against it.

34

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

So we believe the UDHR has been and is an unprecedented
educational and cultural force, making people conversant with the ideaof human rights, providing a widely accepted text enumerating thoserights, and delivering an articulate focus for what might otherwise be
timid and inarticulate concerns. The UDHR in 1948 laid the foundationfor our modern culture of human rights. Now, as distinct from 1948, thedocument functions in a world that by and large takes human rights
seriously, a world in which the idea and culture of human rights arepervasive though implementation falls far short of the ideals, a worldin which the idea of human rights can no longer be dismissed as simply
aspirational and unworldly. In short, the UDHR has had a shaping
influence on the world in which it now operates.

1.5 Legal status
The UDHR was originally formulated as “soft law;” it was aspirational,
not legally binding. Since its adoption, however, the UDHR has been
complemented by the two covenants that are legally binding on thenations that have signed and ratified them: the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976 and has
been ratified by 168 nations; and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which also came into force in1976 and has been ratified by 164 nations. Further, many provisions of
the UDHR are also now part of customary international law. There are
additional conventions on particular human rights concerns, such as
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),
and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The International Bill of Human Rights is matched in many casesby the rights provisions of national constitutions, charters, and bills ofrights. Some of these, like the U.S. Bill of Rights, predate the UDHR
by decades or centuries. Others, including the constitutions of some of
the newest countries in the world, have been cast in the image of the1. The Long and Influential Life of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights 35

International Bill of Human Rights, directly or indirectly adopting ideas
and formulations from these international instruments. In this way
the UDHR provides a template for national law-making, and forges
a continuum between the international protection of human rights
and their protection under public law in particular countries. Suchinternational and national instruments are complemented by regional
treaties – principally the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the European
Convention on Human Rights.
In reality, most of the legal work to secure human rights andvindicate them in the face of violations is conducted under the auspicesof national and regional law and practice. This will continue to be theordinary mode of implementation in the twenty-first century, and one of
the roles of international declarations like the UDHR and the Covenants
should be to serve as a model for structuring local constitutional andlegislative arrangements.

1.6 Foundational principles
The Declaration does not clearly indicate the reasons for enumerating
the particular rights it mentions, nor does it articulate the philosophicalideas upon which these rights are predicated. However, the Commission
believes that the UDHR’s emphasis on the principle of human dignity is
the keystone. The Preamble enunciates the principle: “recognition of theinherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all membersof the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peacein the world.” The United Nations clause says that the Member States
have “reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person.” And Article 1 reaffirms the ideal that“all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
In the Covenants, dignity is also cited as a way of determining whata particular right entails. For example, Article 10(1) of the ICCPR says:“All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with […] respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person,” and Article 13(1) of the
ICESCR recognizes a right to education and provides that “education
shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and36

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

the sense of its dignity.” There is a reference of this kind in the UDHR’s
conditions of work provision, Article 23, which asserts, among otherthings, that “everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthyof human dignity.”
Dignity is not defined in the UDHR or in any of the human rights
documents that repeatedly invoke it. But it is clear that human dignity
is a special status that accrues to all people on account of the inherent
features of their human being, their human potential, and their
human qualities and capacities. As a status dignity implies a numberof important rights and responsibilities; it generates a basis on whichpeople can exact respect for themselves from others; it is an equal status;
and it inheres in people by virtue of their humanity as such, irrespectiveof merit or demerit.
Human dignity is often cited as a value or principle associatedintegrally and perhaps foundationally with human rights. The Preamble
to the ICCPR announces this specifically, “recognizing that these rights
derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.” A number ofnational constitutions also make human dignity the centerpiece of theirbills or charters of fundamental rights. These include the South African
Constitution (Articles 1, 7, and 10), the Chinese Constitution (Article 38),
the Basic Law of Germany (Article 1.1), and many others.

1.7 Universality
Our report makes a number of claims about what ought to count as ahuman right: for example, that it is every human being’s right not to beenslaved, and that it is every human being’s right to marry and found afamily. How are such claims to be understood? Specifically, are they put
forward as principles that everyone ought to accept regardless of his or
her religion or cultural tradition, or are they meant merely to reflect thevalues of a particular segment of the human population?
To say that freedom from enslavement is a human right is not merely
to express a preference for living in a world in which no one is enslaved.
It is also not merely to say that freedom from slavery is an ideal towhich we happen to subscribe but that others are free to reject in favorof a competing ideal. It is to say that enslaving people deprives them

1. The Long and Influential Life of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights 37

of a condition of life to which they are entitled inalienably as a resultof being human. There is no way to understand this claim as simply
the expression of a mere preference; it is put forward and urged on
everybody as a matter of principle.
But how is such a principled commitment to avoid coming acrossas disrespectful towards the potentially vast number of human beings
who may disagree with a particular human rights claim? The claim
about slavery may no longer be controversial in our time; but the claim
about marriage, for example, is an occasion for much controversy withdifferent interpretations both advanced and rejected by large numbersof people around the globe. If we adopt a particular view, are we not indanger of just imposing our own values on others, without considerationof their opposing points of view?
We do not think so. First, when a claim, any claim, is put forward as
true, that is not the same thing as saying that it is put forward as certain,
or infallible, or not open to rational discussion. The claim needs to be backed
up with reasons and arguments, and any reasons and arguments on theother side need to be listened to, considered, and answered. We havesought to arrive at the moral conclusions about human rights that seem
to us most justified by what we judge to be the best moral thinkingof our time. However, we remain entirely sensitive to the possibility
that we have fallen short and invite anyone who disagrees with ourconclusions to assert and argue the countervailing considerations.
Second, many expressions of human rights – including those of the
UDHR – allow for a certain amount of contextual variation. For example,
the UDHR is emphatic in Articles 10 and 11 that people have the right todue process when they are accused of any crime, but the legal systemsof the world vary in their procedural arrangements and, within broad
limits, the UDHR respects such variations.
Finally, the formulations of human rights declarations are often
vague and abstract, and they leave certain issues unsettled and open
to interpretation. These are often matters of good-faith disagreement
within particular countries and between particular countries. So, forexample, some countries may regard corporal punishment as consistentin principle with Article 5 (the anti-torture provision) while othercountries emphatically reject this. Similarly, some countries may see thedisenfranchisement of convicted prisoners as consistent with Article 21(the democracy provision) while others will disagree. This openness of38

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

the UDHR is one of its great virtues. It does not preclude the emergenceof a checkerboard of interpretations around the world of its various
provisions, reflecting what European human rights lawyers call a“margin of appreciation” for discrete national practices and sensibilities.
The room for interpretation is not unlimited, but the provisions of the
Declaration were not intended to settle every last detail.

1.8 Interconnectivity of rights
It was no doubt important to divide the binding human rights
instruments into two separate covenants – the ICCPR and ICESCR – if
only to secure ratification of at least one of these (e.g., the ICCPR by
the United States or the ICESCR by China) in circumstances where theratification of the other was not possible. But the unity of the UDHR inthis respect – the fact that it combines civil, political, economic, social,and cultural rights in a single declaration with a single preamble – iscritical.
The UDHR does not explicitly commit itself to any thesis of theindivisibility of human rights. But implicitly it conveys the impressionthat the values that underpin, for example, the free expression provision,
the anti-torture provision, and the democracy provision are groundedin the same way and stand upon the same foundation as the values that
underpin the social security provision, the conditions of work provision,and the standard of living provision. Not everyone is convinced of this,of course, but we think it was an appropriate stance to take in drafting
the UDHR.
Although the rights set out in the UDHR are presented as a list – line
item by line item – it is imperative to acknowledge the interconnectivityof these rights. We should understand the Declaration as an implicit
expression of the interconnections, overlaps, and mutual reinforcement
between rights. By way of illustration, both Article 4 (the anti-slavery
provision) and Article 16 (the marriage and family provision) arerelevant to child marriage.

2. The Evolving
Understanding of Rights

Globalization has changed the terms of interaction in global life, and it
has created space both for implicit extensions of and explicit additions
to the content of human rights doctrine. We recall that since 1948 there
have been many other substantive human rights conventions that haveaddressed some of the issues we identify – including the rights of women,
the rights of children, and the rights of the disabled. Nevertheless, it isimportant to recognize a number of rights that we think have come into
clearer focus after 70 years and need more emphasis than they received
in the Declaration. Some of these rights are mentioned in the UDHR,
such as the rights of women, but we want to suggest that the language
could have been more vivid in light of what we now know. Other rights,
such as those related to sexual orientation, are not expressly addressedat all in the document, and involve a change in consciousness andconcern since the UDHR was adopted. But it is arguable that even thesecan be understood as an elaboration of rights to personal freedom or
autonomy that are in fact clearly affirmed in the Declaration.
The suggestions below are preliminary and non-exhaustive, andmany of them are controversial. We view our role as initiating a
conversation on the challenges raised by particular issues, rather thantrying to legislate definitively on the content of particular rights. Our
aim is not to rewrite the Declaration or suggest amendments to it.
Instead the Commission wishes to pay tribute to the enduring power ofthe original document, and draw attention to new issues that reflect our
understanding of human rights today.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.07

40

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

2.1 Rights of members of specific groupsa. The rights of women
A large part of the world condones the systemic violation of the humanrights of women on a daily basis – whether directly in the form ofdomestic violence, female genital cutting, forced marriage, and otherforms of oppression, or indirectly in the way women have to bear theconsequences of extreme poverty and a lack of access to healthcare
and to safe water and sanitation. These indirect impacts on the rights
of women also include, for example, traditional systems of landownership and inheritance, economies that fail to ensure women canhave enough income to support a decent standard of life from birth toold age, systems of family law that make it impossible for women toleave situations of violence, and attitudes with respect to employmentthat result in women being paid less for the same work and working
disproportionately in informal and insecure sectors.
The Commission wishes to highlight that the framers of the Declaration
recognized in 1948 that gender equality was essential. Article 2 of the
UDHR expressly held that “everyone is entitled to all the rights andfreedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,such as […] sex.” In light of the widespread human rights violations
perpetrated against women around the Earth in the subsequent 70 years,
it is important to reaffirm without qualification that the grounding of
the UDHR in human dignity requires that all people – including all
women – enjoy the rights set out in the UDHR, including the right toeducation, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,
the right to equal employment opportunities, the right to marry onlywith free and full consent, and the right to be free from torture andcruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.1 Women’s rights, including
all rights recognized in the ICCPR and CEDAW, must be recognized
as real and women must be respected by governments everywhere in1	The use of gender-specific language and assumptions in the UDHR – such as thelanguage of “human brotherhood” in Article 1 and the implication in Article 23(3)that it is men who work and provide subsistence for a family – is a function of thetime and should not be read as discriminatory.

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights

41

the world as equal to men – irrespective of religions and cultures. Our
point is that formal equality is not sufficient: as recognized by Goal
5 of the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a need to actuallyachieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. It is crucial
to give attention to the gender impacts of systems and attitudes thatare apparently “gender-blind.” The UDHR must be read in a way thathighlights the specific impact upon women of certain abuses, certain
attitudes, and certain forms of neglect.

b. The rights of children
The UDHR does not expressly recognize the rights of children. In fact,
it was not until the adoption of the CRC in 1989 that the rights of theworld’s youngest were explicitly acknowledged by an international
treaty. The CRC articulated, for the first time, that children possess
innate rights equal to those of adults: rights to health, to education, toprotection, and to equal opportunity.
Nonetheless, a number of provisions in the UDHR are relevant to therights of children. Article 25, the standard of living provision, recognizes
that children are “entitled to special care and assistance.” Article 26 of
the Declaration sets out the right to education. In fact, the education
section is one of the most detailed provisions of the UDHR. And Article
16(1) of the UDHR, the marriage and family provision, reads: “Men andwomen of full age, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family.” It is clear that the rightof parents to found and raise a family is not only a right – it is also a
responsibility. Consequently, the rights of children are not just rights inrelation to governments: they are, in the first instance, rights in relation
to their parents.
There are different kinds of incentives for upholding the rights ofchildren in different parts of the world. In some cases, both the child’s
parents and the government keep their eyes closed to violations. Thus,
in addition to recognizing the obligations of parents and governments,
we should also acknowledge the responsibilities of the community atlarge, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
No account of the rights of children would be complete withouthighlighting slavery. Children make up a substantial portion of the 35.8

42

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

million people that Walk Free estimates are enslaved around the world.
While measuring this hidden crime is difficult, based on World Bankage distribution data and the Global Slavery Index, there are currently
an estimated 8.7 million children in slavery. Slavery is expressly
prohibited by Article 4 of the Declaration: “No one shall be held inslavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.”2
The Commission also considered the issue of child marriage
specifically. Article 16(2) of the Declaration says: “Marriage shall beentered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”
However, in certain parts of the world, “free and full consent” is often
assumed based on custom, culture, or tradition. And the assertion isfrequently made that this is an instance of competing rights: the right ofa child to marry freely, against the right to freedom of culture or freedomof religion. Indeed, there is a strong linkage between the existence ofdual or parallel legal systems within a country and the prevalence ofchild, early, and forced marriages. While most national laws prohibit
child, early, and forced marriages, in those countries where customary,tribal, or religious laws are a powerful civil force, they are sometimes
abused to compromise or undermine national laws regulating marriage.
These laws expose children to child marriage, and potentially condemn
them to a life of poverty and violence.
Custom, culture, and tradition may not legitimately dispense withthe requirement of explicit individual consent. We insist that the rightsof children (like those of women) can never properly be denied in thename of particular beliefs or cultures. A simple, positive statement
should be made to young people that “you do not have to get married
unless you want to.” On this view, the greatest hope for fulfilmentof the Declaration is that the people, families, and communities most2	It is worth noting that Article 1(d) of the UN Supplementary Convention on
the Abolition of Slavery states that “any institution or practice whereby a childor young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his
natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not,with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour” is an
institution or practice similar to slavery.

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights43

susceptible to human rights abuses begin to understand the Declaration,
grasp it, and use it as their shield.
The Commission wishes to advance a number of proposals thatwould strengthen the protection of children’s rights in the twentyfirst century. At the international level, we propose the creation of aChildren’s Court, with the power to receive and adjudicate petitions
from children and their representatives on violations of the CRC, issue
legally binding judgments, and investigate areas of concern includingchild labor, child slavery, and child marriage.3 The Commission also
calls for the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute
crimes against children within its remit to the full extent of the law.
Further, we recommend that the UN Security Council convene a“Children’s Council” – an annual debate on children’s rights, building
on its existing review of the issue of children in armed conflict. At
the national level, the Commission urges states to create accessible
complaint mechanisms for the resolution of violations of the rights ofchildren, and to consider establishing a Youth Parliament, Children’s
Commissioner, and dedicated Children’s Budget. We believe thatthese measures can play a vital role in realizing the rights articulated
in the CRC.

c. The rights of the disabled, including the
profoundly disabled
The right to equality, enshrined in the UDHR, is as relevant to people
with disabilities as it is to any other members of society. The UDHR
makes no mention of human disability, apart from an oblique mention
in Article 25, which cites a person’s inability to secure subsistence “in3	Children from countries that have ratified the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC
can submit a complaint to the Committee on the Rights of the Child if their rights
under the Convention, or its two earlier Optional Protocols, have been violated by
the state and when all domestic remedies have been exhausted. To date, however,
only 24 states have ratified the Third Optional Protocol, and many of those states
have failed to adequately educate the public as to its existence. Further, this formof redress is political, rather than legal, and decisions made by the Committee are
non-binding.

44

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

circumstances beyond his control.” However, in 2006, the UN adopted
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which
represents a paradigm shift in the global movement from viewing
persons with disabilities as “objects” of charity, medical treatment, andsocial protection towards viewing persons with disabilities as “subjects”
with rights, who are capable of claiming those rights and making
decisions for their lives based on their free and informed consent.
Speaking philosophically, disability may pose particular issues
when humans lack the characteristics or capacities on which humandignity is usually grounded. And speaking practically, disability may
require particular and if need be costly attention to the way in whichrights are fulfilled. We believe it is vital to reaffirm the possession ofhuman rights by all humans, including those suffering from disabilities.
Disability covers a wide range of human situations, with loss of partof one’s capacities at one end (e.g., deafness, blindness, loss of limbs)
ranging all the way through to a profound loss of cognitive capacity at
the other. The Commission emphasizes the rights of people sufferingfrom disabilities at each point on the spectrum, and the importance oftaking reasonable measures to facilitate the exercise and fulfilment ofsuch rights. Even when the disability is profound, we must respect thehuman lives and human needs of those who cannot participate withothers on equal terms.

d. Rights related to sexual orientation
It is important to highlight two particular omissions of the UDHR
with respect to sexual orientation: first, that sexual orientation andtransgender status is not mentioned in Article 2 – the universality
provision – as a category that cannot justify a restriction of rights; andsecond, that Article 16 – the marriage and family provision – does not
explicitly establish rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender(LGBT) people to marry and to found a family. The omissions areunderstandable, as a new normative context around sexual orientationand transgender status has only emerged in the past 20 years.
Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to address these omissions byaffirming that: first, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights

45

enumerated in the UDHR without distinction based on sexual orientation
or transgender status; second, Article 7, the non-discrimination
provision, should be understood to prohibit discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation or transgender status; and third, Article
16 protects the rights of LGBT people to marry and to found a family.
There is no getting round the fact that the controversy around same-sex
marriage is a human rights issue. There is a need to acknowledge it assuch and debate it as such.

e. The rights of prisoners
Article 10 of the ICCPR establishes certain rights of prisoners that havedeveloped as guiding norms of international human rights law. Someof these are specific, such as the segregation of juvenile from adultprisoners. Some are quite general, including the requirement that all
persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity andwith respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
The rights of prisoners have become a particularly acute issue inrecent years with the emergence of new forms of detention as part of
the response to international terrorism. The Commission believes that
Article 10 of the ICCPR was right to make explicit these principles, which
are essential to a just penitentiary system and a necessary complement
to Article 5 of the UDHR, which prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment.
From a human rights point of view, the scale of incarceration may be
an issue, as well as the conditions that people face when incarcerated.
Indeed, many of the concerns about the role played by factors such as
race and drugs in sustaining disproportionately high levels of prison
populations in certain countries are human rights concerns.
Prisoners retain the bulk of their fundamental rights, with the
exception of those rights directly affected by restrictions implicit intheir incarceration. It remains debated whether rights such as the rightto vote should be maintained by prisoners when they are incarcerated.
The Commissioners accept that disagreement on this question
may, depending on the content of the view, constitute reasonabledisagreement. However, the right to vote should never be denied to46

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

people who have finished a custodial sentence on the basis of theirhaving been convicted of an offense. The penalty for the crime is thecustodial sentence itself. Beyond that, to deprive people of one of thefundamental democratic rights denies them the full citizenship to which
all are entitled, and undermines the process of their social reintegration.

2.2 Rights of groups as such
Human rights are in the first instance rights of individuals. However,human communities, human peoples, and human families are also
possessed of human rights, and recent developments in human rights
law have made this plain.
Group rights are a difficult and controversial idea, but there is no
doubt that some human communities are entitled to rights, whether
conceived as the aggregate of members’ individual rights or the rightsof the group as a whole.

a. The right to national self-determination,
including regional autonomy and subsidiarity
The UDHR makes no mention of national self-determination or the
self-determination of peoples as a right. On the contrary, the UDHR
still uses the language of colonialism, with Member States pledging topromote respect for human rights “among the peoples of territories
under their jurisdiction.” However, both the ICCPR and the ICESCR
recognize the right of “all peoples” to self-determination by virtue of
which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social, and cultural development.
The omission of the right to self-determination from the UDHR isunderstandable, as the decolonization movement largely occurred
after 1948 (and before the adoption of the ICCPR and ICESCR in 1966).
Nonetheless, international recognition of this right emerged swiftly,
and the Commission believes that the wording in the first Article ofeach of the Covenants was an essential addition to the International
Bill of Human Rights. Admittedly, the definition of “peoples” remains
controversial in many circumstances, but the formulations of the2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights

47

Covenants point us to the fact that these controversies need to beworked out as human rights issues.

b. The rights of indigenous peoples
Particular attention needs to be paid to the situation of indigenous
peoples: those who were the original inhabitants of lands impacted
by imperial expansion and colonialism. More and more efforts areunderway nationally and internationally to take the rights of indigenous
peoples into account. The UDHR’s emphasis on equality makes culturalprotection a legitimate interest, and thereby provides a justification forsuch efforts.

c. Ethnic cleansing
Ethnic cleansing was of intense importance in 1948, and is a matter ofgrave concern today, as recognized by its inclusion in the Rome Statuteof the International Criminal Court. It would be good for human rights
declarations to embrace a clear and explicit understanding of ethnic
cleansing as a grievous human rights abuse. It is important that humanrights be understood not just for what they are, but also in the different
modes in which they may be abused and violated, of which ethnic
cleansing is one.

d. The rights of peoples prejudiced at the nationalor communal level by climate change
Climate change is a genuinely new issue, which has emerged in the last
20 to 25 years. There is no way it could have been envisaged in 1948.
It is, however, urgent for the international community to address it in2016. Climate change may well turn out to be the most consequential
global challenge of the twenty-first century. It will reshape the conceptof global citizenship in a number of regards, but the implications forhuman rights will be severe and should command the closest attention
and thought among human rights advocates.

48

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

There are already, and there will be in future, massive implications
for local and global economies, for human subsistence, and for migration.
The impacts will not be felt evenly. For example, environmental migrants
are often drawn from the most marginalized members of society, groups
dependent on agriculture, populations in the least developed countries,
in low-lying areas and coastal areas, and of course those impacted bynational disasters. Increases in extreme weather events, the inundationof low-lying areas, and changes in patterns of weather affecting foodproduction will all have a direct and also an indirect impact on people’s
rights as they are understood in the UDHR.

2.3 Rights related to other issues
involving vital interests
a. Migration
The movement of people and peoples was an issue in 1948 and it is once
again a pressing concern. The UDHR offers some resources for thinking
about migration. Article 14, the asylum provision, provides that“everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum
from persecution.” And Article 15 states that everyone has the right toa nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Migration has become salient in new ways in our time. First, its
scale has multiplied since 1948, with the wave of international migrants
anticipated to surpass 250 million in 2015. Remittances from migrant
workers play a significant role in economic development, with morethan 400 billion USD a year flowing in this way to developing countries.
Well-managed migration has been recognized as playing a decidedly
positive role in economic development.
In 2015, conflict-related migration was at an all-time high, withworldwide displacement at the highest levels since records began. Muchof this is the result of human rights violations in migrants’ countriesof origin. In 2015, the number of displaced people was expected to
exceed 60 million, compared to 37.5 million a decade earlier. Over 5

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights49

million newly displaced people were reported in the first half of 2015,
comparable to the 5.5 million newly displaced for the same period in
2014. Every day in 2014, 42,500 people became refugees, asylum seekers,
or internally displaced.
Conflict-driven migration has high human and social costs. In 2015,
over one million people arrived by sea in Europe, and more than 27,000
made crossings by sea in South-East Asia in the first half of the year,
reflecting an explosion in the criminal trade of moving people fromconflict zones for profit. We know this can have tragic consequences forsome of the world’s most vulnerable people: more than 46,000 migrants
have died along migratory routes since 2000, and more than 3,770 diedcrossing the Mediterranean in 2015 alone. Worldwide, the total numberof deaths across migratory routes in 2015 was 5,400.
Migration has enormous implications for the realization of humanrights. While the UDHR applies to all persons irrespective of nationality
or citizenship, in reality human rights are often inaccessible or denied
to migrants. For example, refugees may be admitted to a country toseek safety but then denied the right to work. Migrant workers may be
admitted to a country to work but legally prohibited from starting or
joining trade unions. It must be recognized that those who move acrossstate boundaries: retain their universal human rights and should betreated accordingly; have continuing rights in relation to their countryof origin; have a right to security in transit, including freedom fromforced or coerced movement; have a right to a fair and responsible
process at borders and in all legal dealings with an actual or potential
host country; and have a right to good reason for a refusal to allow
entrance or settlement – refusal should not be based on ethnic, racial,religious, or other illegitimate discrimination.
While there are large-scale and varied international movements ofpeople in the contemporary world, states often seek to restrict migration
on economic, cultural, security, or other grounds. There is no consensus
on the balance between rights to movement and the power of states torestrict it. However, given the current situation, there is an urgent needfor the international community to strengthen the international refugeeprotection system. Perhaps we should be looking for a new international
convention on refugees and migration. In any case, we endorse SDG
target 10.7, which calls for states to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and50

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

responsible migration and mobility of people, including through theimplementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.”b. Statelessness“Statelessness” arises when a person is deprived of a state and its legal
system, which provides access to rights and remedies for their violation.
Inasmuch as states have front-line responsibility for upholding thehuman rights of their citizens, stateless persons are deprived of thebenefit of this responsibility. A person’s legal right and ability to accesshuman rights protections often depends on whether or not they are anational or citizen of the country they are in. This is about both lack of
certainty in law and also prevailing social attitudes.
Statelessness is not a new issue. Article 15 of the UDHR upholds theright of every human being to a nationality. Nonetheless, there are still
10 million stateless people in the world today, over a third of whom
are children. And during the past five years, 20 percent of all refugees
resettled by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) have also been stateless.4
Stateless people are deprived of rights that the majority of the global
population takes for granted. Often they are excluded from cradle tograve – being denied a legal identity when they are born, access to
education, health care, marriage, and job opportunities during their
lifetime, and even the dignity of an official burial and death certificate
when they die.
In the last three years there has been a positive trend toward resolving
statelessness, as 26 states have acceded to the 1954 Convention relating4	There are a number of causes of statelessness. Some countries do not recognize
people from certain communities as citizens of that country. For instance, there
are more than 800,000 Rohingya in Myanmar that have been refused nationality
under the 1982 citizenship law, and many of the Bedouins of Kuwait are effectively
stateless. Statelessness is also caused by the breakup of countries. More than two
decades after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, over 600,000 people remainstateless. In addition, there are 27 countries in the world where women do nothave the same rights as men to confer nationality on their children. So if you area single mother of a child whose father is not known, you are unable to pass yournationality to your child. Finally, there are circumstances where bureaucratic
difficulties in obtaining documentation such as birth certificates preclude people
from accessing rights associated with nationality.

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights

51

to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness. Still, only 82 countries in all have accededto the 1954 Convention and only 60 countries have acceded to the1961 Convention. In November 2014 the UNHCR launched a 10-Year
Campaign to End Statelessness, and the Executive Committee of theHigh Commissioner’s Programme approved a budget of 68 million
USD for 2015. There is much more to be done to deal with statelessness,ensure that every birth is registered, and prevent gender and otherforms of discrimination in nationality laws.

c. Administrative justice
The UDHR contains legality rights in Articles 8 to 11 but these mainly
focus on criminal law. Given that administrative regulation is now
pervasive, it is arguable that there should be a duty on bodies exercising
governmental functions to act fairly, reasonably, and lawfully indecisions that materially affect an individual’s rights and interests, andto ensure that individuals whose interests and livelihoods are affected byadministrative decisions have a right to be heard prior to the decisions
being made and a right to challenge them where appropriate.

d. Corruption
Corruption in the performance of state functions has been a problem
since human governance began. Over the last 30 years there has beena rising awareness of the relevance of anti-corruption measures to therule of law, state-building, and economic growth. The World Bank
estimates that each year 20 billion USD to 40 billion USD, corresponding
to 20 percent to 40 percent of official development assistance, is stolen
through high level corruption from public budgets in developing
countries and hidden overseas.5 The flow on effects for access to rights
are enormous.
The UN Convention Against Corruption, adopted in 2003, obliges
State Parties to implement a wide and detailed range of anti-corruption5	
http://www.oecd.org/cleangovbiz/49693613.pdf

52

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

measures affecting their laws, institutions, and practices. These
measures aim to promote the prevention, detection, and punishmentof corruption, including domestic and foreign bribery, embezzlement,
trading in influence, and money laundering, as well as the cooperation
between State Parties on these matters.
Corruption is inextricably linked to the violation of an array ofhuman rights, including the anti-slavery provision, the freedom of
movement provision, and the legality provisions of Articles 8 to 11;
moreover, people are wronged when they are denied equal access togovernmental services as a result of corruption. This illustrates yet again
the interconnectivity of rights and rights violations, described in section
1.8. There is a need and a duty for individuals, states, and other entities
to recognize and respond to the human rights impact of governmental
corruption, and to work to bring it to an end.

e. Privacy from state or corporate
electronic surveillance
Article 12, the privacy and reputation provision, states that no one shallbe subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy.
In recent years there has been an exponential surge in the span andcapacity of electronic communications, with concomitant opportunities
for surveillance that can violate individuals’ privacy rights. State
surveillance can be an important law enforcement and national security
intelligence-gathering tool when governed by strong rule of law
requirements. But surveillance also poses risks, not only to privacy, butalso to the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, which
increasingly are facilitated online and on mobile devices. Journalists,
activists, government critics, and minority groups are especiallyvulnerable to abuse of states’ surveillance powers. In addition, there
are mounting concerns about threats to individual privacy fromsurveillance and commercially driven data collection by corporations.
These trends suggest to us that human rights documents need tocite new principles or new elaborations of old principles to balance
the inevitable trade-offs that result from state or corporate electronic
surveillance.

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights53

f. Access to the Internet and electronic
communication on a global scale
A case can be made that access to the Internet and electronic
communication is a human right. Some would object that a document
like the UDHR aims to state core principles grounded in human dignity,
and that the Internet is too recent and contingent a development to berecognized as the proper subject of a human right. Still, the provisions of
the Declaration vary in the level of detail that they encompass – see, forexample, the thorough language of Article 26, the education provision.
It is certainly important to understand that the specific rights set out
in the Declaration extend to new technologies, including the Internet.
This follows from our understanding of the UDHR as a living document.
By way of illustration, the abstract language of Article 19 – read in
the context of today – implies that the right to freedom of expression
encompasses communication via the Internet. That article states that“everyone has the right to […] impart information and ideas throughany media and regardless of frontiers.”
Electronic communication, particularly through the Internet, enables
the exercise of a range of other human rights. For example, social
media provide a platform for people to exercise their Article 20 rights
to peaceful assembly and association in circumstances where they
otherwise could not do so.

g. Extreme poverty and deep economic inequality
The UDHR already enumerates a range of social and economic rights.
It tends to state them in the affirmative: for example, the right to social
security in Article 22 or the right to work in Article 23. Ever since 1948,
however, there has been a contention that we should also maintain afocus on the conditions that continue to make social provision necessary.
Two such conditions now merit particular attention: extreme poverty
and deep economic inequality.
Economic inequality is defined by the gap between rich and poor,
both nationally (within countries) and globally (between countries).
Deep economic inequality refers to disparities that involve poverty on

54

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

the one hand, and great riches on the other.6 In general terms, poverty
can be defined as an individual’s or family’s inability to meet basic needs
such as food, shelter, clothing, water, sanitation, education, healthcare,nutrition, and access to communication. Extreme poverty refers toearning that lies below the international poverty line of 1.90 USD a day,as set by the World Bank.7 The UDHR is not explicit about extreme
poverty, but the recent SDG target to “by 2030, eradicate extreme
poverty for all people everywhere” should be read as a continuation of
the concerns stated in Article 25, the standard of living provision.
Extreme poverty clearly has direct implications for people’s enjoyment
and exercise of the rights they possess. And while deep inequality is not a
violation of human rights per se, it is often associated with such violations,
inasmuch as it has an impact upon access to political power and also
makes discrimination more difficult to resist. Moreover, it is hard tomaintain a sense of global citizenship in circumstances of such deep
inequality that rich and poor cannot comprehend each other’s lives, bothwithin states and globally. Without such understanding, it is difficult for
the rich to sympathize with the needs and predicaments of the poor, anddifficult for them to see human dignity in the lives of the poor.

h. Healthcare
The UDHR makes a brief but powerful reference to healthcare in Article
25, which states that everyone has the right to a standard of living
6	Income inequality is on the rise, with the richest 10 percent earning up to 40 percent
of total global income, while the poorest 10 percent earn only between 2 and 7
percent of total global income. In developing countries, inequality has increased by
11 percent if we take into account the growth of population. A significant majority ofhouseholds in developing countries – more than 75 percent of the population – areliving today in societies where income is more unequally distributed than it wasin the 1990s. Evidence shows that, beyond a certain threshold, inequality harms
growth and poverty reduction, the quality of relations in the public and politicalspheres, and individuals’ sense of fulfillment and self-worth. SDG 10 is to “reduce
inequality within and among countries.”7	According to the most recent estimates, in 2012, 896 million people lived on lessthan $1.90 a day. Just over 77.8 percent of the extremely poor lived in South Asia
(309 million) and Sub-Saharan Africa (388.7 million). In addition, 147 million lived
in East Asia and Pacific.

2. The Evolving Understanding of Rights55

adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.
Access to health care, both in the form of public health provision in
urban and rural areas, and in terms of disease and epidemic control,
along with the availability of personal health care resources – these areall essential to health and life itself and must be recognized explicitly as
rights. Article 12(1) of the ICESCR speaks of “the right of everyone tothe enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health,” and focuses particularly on the health of children. This should
be read as an elaboration of the concerns embodied in Article 25.

i. A safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment
For obvious reasons, the international community is far more acutely
aware of environmental threats today than it was in 1948. Theinternational community has not yet recognized a human right to adecent and liveable environment per se. However, we believe that our
understanding of human rights should embrace the right to a safe,
clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, with a right of access foreveryone to such elementary resources as clean air, clean water, andclean, safe, and sustainable energy.
We endorse the recent formulation of the Special Rapporteur8 on
human rights and the environment that “[a]ll human rights depend on
the environment in which we live. A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable
environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of humanrights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation.
Without a healthy environment, we are unable to fulfill our aspirations
8	A Special Rapporteur is an individual working on behalf of the UN within thescope of the Special Procedures mechanisms, who bears a specific country orthematic mandate from the UN Human Rights Council. Special Rapporteurs
undertake country visits; act on individual cases and concerns of a broader,structural nature by sending communications to states and others in which theybring alleged violations or abuses to their attention; conduct thematic studies
and convene expert consultations; contribute to the development of international
human rights standards, engage in advocacy, raise public awareness, and provide
advice for technical cooperation.

56

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

or even live at a level commensurate with minimum standards of humandignity. At the same time, protecting human rights helps to protect theenvironment. When people are able to learn about, and participate
in, the decisions that affect them, they can help to ensure that thosedecisions respect their need for a sustainable environment.” The very
existence of the Special Rapporteur reflects the ability of the humanrights system that has emerged since 1948 to respond to new challenges.
Concerns about a decent environment remind us that manyrights need to be conceived of inter-generationally, and that our
responsibilities must embrace the needs and predicaments of ourchildren and grandchildren.

2.4 An open task
The UDHR left some vital questions unanswered and we have sought
to point out some of the ways in which its lacunae have been or could
be filled. But the task of identifying the rights we will need to guarantee
in our progressively more interdependent world will remain open. The
world is changing and humanity changes with it. As we confront the
new realities produced by climate change, we may need to identify newrights necessary to protect fundamental human needs and interests;
as new technologies develop in the life and information sciences, we
may face challenges posed by the reshaping of our minds and bodies,through artificial intelligence or biotechnology. Perhaps, as science
fiction writers and philosophers have suggested, we will one day have toconsider the rights of beings we have created ourselves. But we believethat as the human community moves forward together to address suchchallenges, it will be able to build upon the firm foundations laid out inthe UDHR.

3. Limitations and Derogations

3.1 Adequacy of Article 29 accountof limitations
The second clause of Article 29 – “In the exercise of his rights andfreedoms, 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 thejust requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare
in a democratic society” – assumes almost as a matter of course thatsome limitations on individual rights will be desirable or necessary.
It was probably not the function of the UDHR to explain why thisis the case. Its purpose has been much more to establish the rightsthat it proclaims than to vindicate any basis for their limitation. The
Declaration as a whole should be read as the assertion of a strong
presumption in favor of human rights, and Article 29(2) should beread as placing the burden of proof on anyone who seeks to limit them.
It is critical to recognize the force of Article 29(2)’s insistence that
limitations cannot be particularistic or ad hoc but must be determined
as a matter of law. In modern terms this would be associated with
the idea of proportionality, a principle that has only been clearly
articulated in more recent human rights law.1 Similarly, the suggestion1	The most common formulation of proportionality is as a three-part test, which
asks: (1) Is the measure suitable to achieve a legitimate aim? (2) Is the measurenecessary to achieve that aim or are less restrictive means available? (3) Does themeasure nonetheless impose an excessive burden on the individual affected?
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.08

58

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

that rights may be limited “for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” seems entirely
sensible. Perhaps the number and breadth of the rights recognizedin the UDHR mean that some conflict among them is inevitable. In
articulating the basis on which such conflicts are justly resolved, it isimportant that all the right-holders in question be treated as equals.
Further, limiting a right for the sake of other considerations should
not be seen as disparaging that right or the underlying interest or
liberty from which it flows in any particular case.
Nonetheless, the idea that the limitation of rights can be justified
based on “morality, public order and the general welfare” strikes
us as problematic. It is far too general. If “morality” is seen as thecustoms and mores of a particular society, then the UDHR will failin its central purpose of creating a common understanding of humanrights and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to limit theserights. (If “morality” means the principles of a correct universal moral
code, by contrast, there is little hope of agreement as to its content.)
And the reference to “the general welfare” as a ground of limitation
seems to undercut the modern idea of rights as trumping utilitarianconsiderations. After all, the mere fact that the denial of a right would
marginally increase national income provides no basis for such adenial. We realize that there are serious difficulties in defining clearly
what bases for limiting a right, beyond a conflict with other rights,
are permissible. The better way forward would be to develop sharedunderstandings as to what reasons are not sufficient justifications forsuch limitations.
Article 29(2) does not mention resource limitations as a basis forlimiting rights, especially social and economic rights. The only timesuch limitations are referred to in the UDHR is implicitly in Article
22, the general social security provision: “Everyone, as a member ofsociety, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international cooperation and inaccordance with the organization and resources of each State, of theeconomic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity andthe free development of his personality [emphasis added].”3. Limitations and Derogations

59

3.2 Derogation of rights in national orinternational emergencies
The question of rights in an emergency is distinct from the question of
the balance between rights and the considerations mentioned in Article
29(2). The ICCPR recognizes this in the separate and extensive provision
it makes for emergencies in its Article 4.2 Here the ICCPR sets out therules for derogations in times of emergency; it lays constraints on suchderogations; and it identifies certain rights which may not be derogatedeven in times of emergency. The UDHR does none of this.
It is true that the UDHR initiated our thinking about human rights,
and the issue of derogations (as set out in Article 4 of the ICCPR) is
a product of a later phase in such thinking that we can now takeadvantage of. But the UDHR remains in and of itself something of
crucial educational importance and a vital foundation of the global ethicof human rights. It is therefore a pity that it did not introduce the world
to the idea of emergency derogations – and even more, to the idea that
there are certain rights from which derogations may not be made, likethe rights not to be tortured or enslaved. Such anti-derogation provisions
establish the rights in question as more or less absolute.
The Commission also considered the increasing reliance in themodern world on long-term, continuous states of emergency as
justifications for human rights derogations. One example is the U.S.-led2	Article 4 of the ICCPR states:(1) In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of
which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measuresderogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly requiredby the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with
their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on
the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.
(2) No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16, and 18 may be madeunder this provision.
(3) Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation
shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through theintermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which
it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shallbe made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

60

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century“War on Terror,” which has now lasted for 14 years and has been invoked
to justify such practices as drone strikes in Pakistan and the indefinite
detention of inmates at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. This challenge is not
dealt with adequately by the formulations in Article 4 of the ICCPR, as
they envisage relatively short-term, clearly demarcated emergencies. If
there are to be long-term derogations of human rights, the international
community must develop mechanisms to ensure that this process is
not abused. In the Commission’s view, the following standards should
apply: first, derogations ought to be publicly announced and publicly
justified, whenever possible, and organized in the context of a legislative
framework that provides for independent supervision and oversight;
second, the justification should substantiate that the derogations inquestion are the minimum required to achieve the stated objectives; third,
suitable arrangements should be in place for the supervision of detention,
including procedural safeguards; and fourth, derogations should be for a
fixed period, with renewal subject to the same conditions.
The issue of long-term derogations of human rights should be
the focus of discussion in relevant world bodies, such as the UN
Human Rights Council, as well as across international civil society.
The possibility of reaching international agreements on the relevant
standards governing long-term derogations ought to be explored.

3.3 Regulation of the use of force
The UDHR was intended to operate in conjunction with the UN
Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.
Article 2(4) of the Charter provides that all UN Member States “shallrefrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.” It allowed only two exceptions to the prohibition on the useof force in international law: self-defence under Article 51, and military
measures authorized by the UN Security Council in response to “anythreat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.”
Yet in recent years there have been military interventions that havebeen neither in self-defence nor authorized by the UN Security Council.

3. Limitations and Derogations

61

If the standards governing the use of force in the UN Charter are nolonger effective, then the international community needs to create a newand more workable regime. Certainly we should understand that the
UDHR and the UN Charter must operate together: a world in which
war or the threat of war is endemic cannot be a world in which humanrights are respected. The human rights community therefore has aninterest in the workability of the UN Security Council’s role being
revisited. Any revision should maintain the fundamental restrictions
on the use of force.
The rise and persistence of international terrorism have shown
us that armed conflict is not confined to state organizations, and inmany respects is not amenable in principle to the sort of rules andrestrictions laid down in the UN Charter, which mainly envisageinter-state conflict. Much of the rethinking that is required affects theinternational law of armed conflict, and that is not our subject here.
But the problem of international terrorism does raise a number ofhuman rights issues – about surveillance, about detention of suspects,
and about targeted killing. Since there appears to be no chance thatthese issues will abate soon, we need to address them on the basisthat the circumstances giving rise to them have to be accepted forthe time being as “the new normal.” This does not mean that current
tactics of surveillance, detention, and targeted killing should not bequestioned. But in doing so human rights principles need to be given
due consideration: these practices, and the necessities on which somewould base them, must be addressed as permanent features of ourhuman rights environment. Hard work needs to be done to create anarchitecture of values and principles, derived from current conceptions
and the enduring foundations of human rights, that can deal coherently
with these new features.
The Commission wishes to emphasize two further points. First,
violations of human rights committed in the name of state security can
actually facilitate international terrorism by marginalizing individuals
and alienating key constituencies, thus generating community support
for and complicity in the actions of violent extremists. To be effective
and sustainable, therefore, all policies and practices adopted to prevent
terrorism must be firmly grounded in respect for human rights andthe rule of law. Second, it is vital to take a comprehensive approach

62

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

to terrorism which encompasses not only essential security-based
counter-terrorism measures, but also systematic preventative measures
which address the root causes of violent extremism. These include lackof socio-economic opportunities; marginalization and discrimination;
poor governance; violations of human rights and the rule of law;
prolonged and unresolved conflicts; and radicalization in prisons. The
creation of open, equitable, inclusive, and pluralist societies, based on
the full respect of human rights and with economic opportunities for
all, represents the most tangible and meaningful alternative to violent
extremism and the most promising strategy for undermining its appeal.33	Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, Report of the Secretary General,
A/70/674 (available at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=
A/70/674).

4. Social and Economic Rights

In addition to civil and political rights, the UDHR contains a list ofsocial and economic rights. These are set out in Articles 22 to 26, which
include provisions relating to social security, conditions of work, restand leisure, standard of living, and education.
The inclusion of these rights occasioned some concern in the decades
following the adoption of the UDHR and their inclusion continues to becontroversial for some who resist the idea that these rights are as central
as civil and political rights. Others argue that they are more central.
And some think of them as social and economic aspirations but doubt
whether the language of rights makes sense.
Much of the success of the human rights movement over nearlyseven decades is attributable to the creation of a set of standards thatcan be upheld without changing the structures of international affairs
and the international economy. While social and economic rights
were included in the UDHR, they differ from this paradigm in that
their realization might be thought to require some restructuring of theinternational order. This challenges us to consider the extent to whichsocial and economic objectives should be pursued through a humanrights framework.

4.1 The importance of social andeconomic rights
The Commission believes that social and economic rights are vital. They
reflect genuine human needs that every state has an obligation to attend
to, within existing resources, in the interest of all those committed totheir care.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.09

64

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Social and economic rights are conceptually linked to civil andpolitical rights because respect for human dignity requires that bothbe upheld. There is also a causal connection in that civil and politicalrights can be used to secure social and economic rights, and socialand economic rights make possible the meaningful exercise of civil
and political rights. Indeed, the failure of social and economic rights
makes individuals more vulnerable to other human rights abuses, suchas forced labor. Dire poverty and the other ills and vulnerabilities thatcome with it are a standard threat to rights of all kinds. So we think it
is fitting and valuable to have social and economic rights enshrined in
the same declaration as civil and political rights, and thus to perceive
human rights as a whole in the context of a single declaration.
It is right for the world to indicate to governments that attention tomatters of social security, conditions of work, rest and leisure, standardof living, health, and education are now regarded as elementary andfundamental tasks of government, laid down as compelling priorities
in relation to whatever resources are available. The rights here are notoptional and they are not just wistful longings. A lack of resources does
not turn such rights into a mere wish list. Countries have a categoricalobligation to do all that they reasonably can to fulfil these rights.
Moreover, other states and all international organizations have an
obligation to assist particular countries in this regard.
We add two further points. First, the social and economic part of the
UDHR is not intended as a comprehensive theory of good government,
nor is it intended as a theory of social justice. It is supposed to capture
no more than the essence of certain elementary obligations that societies
owe to their members in the social and economic sphere. Second, theDeclaration does not commit societies to economic equality, but requiresthat specified areas of concern be attended to. In wealthier nations,much more generous provisions can and should be made for health,education, and social security than in developing nations. Nevertheless,the mandate is that every society, within its resources, should pay due
attention to the health, education, and social security of its members.
The value and relevance of Articles 22 to 26 are not just in theimmediate requirements they impose. Like other articles of the UDHR,
these provisions lay down a foundation for a subsequent and wider
comprehension of human rights. In the case of social and economic

4. Social and Economic Rights65

rights, the articles of the UDHR prefigured and prepared the way for
the ICESCR; the development of international agencies devoted tosecuring these rights, directly and indirectly; the inclusion of social andeconomic rights in modern national constitutions (and their elaborationby courts in the context of national constitutional law); and the evolutionof doctrines for benchmarks and core provision of these rights.

4.2 Relation to availability of resources
Social and economic rights are dependent on the availability anddistribution of resources in a way that civil and political rights are not.
It is true that civil and political rights do have their costs and, in somecircumstances, social and economic rights require forbearance rather
than costly action. But in general, the level of provision needed forsocial and economic rights is high. So paying attention to the capacityof the actors responsible for delivering these rights is both natural andunavoidable. It is a matter of debate – among all commentators on
the UDHR – whether Articles 22 to 26 should be read as stipulating acommon core of minimum provision or whether the provision that is
expected should vary with the social and economic circumstances andexpectations of each society.
One view is that it would be dangerous to attempt to stipulate acommon core of provision at some fixed level. First, the standards might
be so minimal that while some countries would deem it an achievement
to meet them, a number of other countries would lose ground. Second,
if certain developing countries knew that they were unable to meet theminimum standards, they would be less likely to ratify human rights
instruments.
However, the more persuasive view is that we should beuncompromising on social and economic rights as they are formulated,but recognize some degree of relativity in capacities and context.
Specifically, we should keep faith with the Declaration’s explicit
universality, both as to actual provision and as to the expectations thatpeople are entitled to. The social and economic provisions of the UDHR
should be interpreted to mean that everyone is entitled to certain
minimum standards of health, education, and social security. The

66

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

concept of dignity – while abstract – provides a yardstick against which
to set minimum measures. The extent of available resources is one
determinative factor, though the UDHR also imposes constraints on the
allocation of such resources as there are: the UDHR mandates that theactors responsible for social and economic rights give priority to health,education, and social security based on resources that can reasonably
be made available given economic and fiscal circumstances, rather
than on the resources that actually are made available. It is possiblethat these rights may permit a reasonable level of cultural relativity:
to take Article 23, what counts as “an existence worthy of humandignity” may vary from one set of social and cultural circumstances toanother. However, the Commission does not accept the idea that there
are cultural differences that can affect who should benefit from socialand economic rights or can justify maldistribution in this regard. So, forexample, we do not believe that people should ever be denied equalsocial and economic rights because they are women or ethnic minorities.
While we must face up to the task of setting reasonably clear
common standards for minimum provision, it is equally imperative toacknowledge the phenomenon of extreme poverty, where there is noquestion that people are living well below the most minimum levels thathuman dignity would demand. In short, we will often be in a position
to conclude that there has been a violation of social and economic rights,
without having to specify a standard at the upper level.
The Commission believes that the UDHR (and the ICESCR) should
be read as endorsing an ongoing global conversation about what theminimum provision should be and a rule of progress to the effect thatthe human rights framework calls for steps to improve the position of
everyone, including the least advantaged in society.

4.3 Responsibilities for social andeconomic rights
To a certain extent, a poor state can act on the internal distribution of
its resources but it cannot directly act to secure an equitable global
distribution of resources that would enable it to end the poverty of its
citizens. Social and economic rights therefore raise questions about the4. Social and Economic Rights

67

allocation of responsibilities, and particularly whether and to what
extent wealthy states have an obligation to help citizens of poor states.
It is arguable that we should be sensitive to the relationship between
the responsibilities that certain rights impose and the capacities that the
responsible actors have to fulfill them, a balance which is particularly
relevant in the context of social and economic rights. Certainly, it might
be thought that any adequate approach to human rights needs to takea realistic view of the capacities of the responsible actors, and of theresources they can control and dispense. A realistic view of the actual
powers and resources of state and non-state agents must take properaccount of the effects of globalization and the ways in which power has
been reconfigured. At the same time, lack of resources does not entitle
any government to ignore its own obligations. The social and economic
rights set out in the UDHR require governments to do everything
reasonable within their power to implement these provisions, including
redressing priorities in the allocation of resources.
This raises a broader point: is it true that you can only articulate rights
after you have identified the responsible authority – a duty-bearer – anddetermined that their violation is actionable? The Commission’s
conclusion is that we are often in a position to identify a right before weare in a position to identify the duty-bearers charged with fulfilling thatright. Each right gives us a reason to seek duty-bearers, but where we
look will depend on the circumstances. And there may be many duties
and many duty-bearers corresponding to a given right. Thus we should
think of duty-bearers of social and economic rights – and indeed rights
generally – as standing not in a static but in a dynamic relation to agiven right. This accords with the way philosophers analyze the relation
between rights and duties.
We have to recognize that we are not always dealing withstraightforward, concrete rights violations, but instead with a plethoraof ways in which there can be failures of responsibility. There are those
who are able to act to bring about progress on social and economic
rights, but who may not have full agency with regard to a violation
per se. Responsibilities will therefore be both direct and indirect. More
broadly, systems that sustain long-term global poverty are mattersof deep concern, and the international community must question
arrangements that do not further the attainment of social and economic

68

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

rights. This puts the issue of poverty onto the agenda for citizens, states,
corporations, and international institutions – which is one of the mostpowerful ways in which social and economic rights operate.
The Commission believes that states have front-line responsibility
for the social and economic well-being of their citizens. Fair economic
growth has a critical role to play in this, and the Commission believes it
is crucial to see a stronger connection between economic policy and the
instruments of human rights. The support of the international community
should to some extent be conditioned on whether the governments ofparticular countries are discharging their own responsibilities. The
UDHR leaves open the question of placing social and economic rights
in a constitution and the question of their justiciability in the courts.
We judge that the most likely vehicle for implementation of theserights is social legislation rather than the constitution of each country.
And another issue – an open one – is whether it is wise to allocate
enforcement here to courts.
It is evident, however, that the challenges faced by many states cannot
be resolved entirely by actions in those states alone. The Commission
believes that there is an overwhelming moral case for interpreting thesocial and economic rights provisions of the Declaration as placing
obligations on the international community to alleviate world poverty.
International aid and transfers, aimed at strengthening the capacity ofrecipient states to secure the social and economic rights of their citizens,
thus have an indispensable role to play.
Three more specific points are worth mentioning. First, it is clearthat many low-income and middle-income countries cannot afford to
tackle the poverty of their citizens entirely by themselves. Analysis by
the World Bank shows that even if those countries were to tax theirmiddle class to the limit, it would not generate enough resources toeradicate their endemic poverty.1 Second, there are approximately 700
million people in the world who currently live on less than 1.90 USD aday. However, the amount of money needed to bring these people outof such extreme poverty is small in relation to the world’s resources.
Third, in 1970, the UN General Assembly agreed that all “economicallyadvanced countries” should dedicate 0.7 percent of their gross national1	
http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/should-we-care-equally-about-poorpeople-wherever-they-may-live

4. Social and Economic Rights



69

income to official development assistance. Nonetheless, in 2013 only
Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates,
and the United Kingdom spent more than 0.7 percent on aid. Social andeconomic rights are an international and not just a national responsibility.
Responsibilities among the international community to uphold socialand economic rights are in the Commission’s view held not only bystates, but also above the level of states by international organizations
and below the level of states by corporations and individuals. Issues ofworld poverty cannot be dealt with exclusively by nations or by a transfer
of resources between nations. Global businesses have a substantial
and at times decisive impact on the social and economic rights ofmillions of people worldwide. Their role can be positive or negative.
Over the last third of a century, the expansion of the global economy,
led by the private sector, has been the driving force in lifting almost
two billion people out of extreme poverty. But in too many instancesbusinesses have also frustrated government efforts to protect the socialand economic welfare of their people, and have been implicated inviolations of social and economic rights. Redefining the legal obligationsof corporations is of course a difficult and complicated matter. There is,however, an emerging demand for companies to recognize and act on
responsibilities arising out of human rights in their global operations,
including the right to just conditions of work. Drawing on the inspirationof the UDHR, companies and other stakeholders are beginning to shapeindustry-specific human rights standards and metrics.

4.4 Poverty reduction and other human rights
It is sometimes said that, although the rights in the Declaration arepresented as an interconnected body of principles, complementary andmutually supportive, there are in fact serious conflicts among them. It
is sometimes argued, for example, that the right to freedom of speechor assembly may conflict with the right of people not to live in poverty,
that the only way to lift large numbers of people out of poverty may
involve authoritarian rule. Or, to take another example, it is sometimes
argued that the right to life and security may conflict with the right toprivacy, that ensuring that innocent civilians are not subject to violent
attacks may involve curbing their rights not to be surveilled.

70

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

It is important to appreciate that, to the extent to which there is a
“trade-off” among various rights, it is not a conflict among the rights
themselves. The principles of the UDHR are entirely consistent with one
another and may all derive from a single foundation.
What is true is that, in certain very specific real-world settings, ourability to fully implement one right may conflict with our ability to fully
implement another, at least temporarily. This is not a logical conflictamong the rights themselves, but rather a reflection of the way inwhich real-world conditions can put pressure on the simultaneous
implementation of several rights.
However, no claim that there exists, in a specific real-world setting,a tension between the implementation of one right and that of anotheris ever self-evident. Any such claim would be very hard to establish andmust always be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.
Furthermore, it is always a serious question whether any particular
proposed trade-off is morally justifiable. Even if it were true that, under
the pressure of certain sorts of threat, a greater emphasis on preserving
the right to life might require curbing the right to privacy, it is not
obvious what this should entail. We must be able to choose whether we
prefer to live in a surveillance society or whether we prefer to live in afreer society that runs a somewhat greater risk of unpredictable attacks
on its citizens.
The implementation of human rights is a historical process, in which
fulfillment is often and in varying degrees incomplete and uneven. It is
a complex process too, involving not just the avoidance of violations but
the setting up and maintaining of social, political, and legal systems andinstitutions. This is necessarily a protracted and asymmetrical process.
So, in all of this, progress, not perfection, should be the measure.

5. Responsibility for
Human Rights

These issues of social and economic rights have put the subject of
responsibility firmly on the table, but we thought it appropriate toaddress it at a more general level as well.
Responsibility for rights has a number of aspects. In this section
we are concerned with two of them: first, responsibilities for securing
the subject matter of each right; and second, responsibilities of rightsbearers themselves. A third set of responsibilities – for monitoring,
investigating, and remedying rights violations – is discussed in
section 6.
The UDHR enumerates rights, but it does not specify who carries
the corresponding duties. The Declaration seems to assume that states
are the primary bearers of responsibility. There is also a suggestionin the document that responsibility for upholding human rights may
fall on individuals and entities below the level of the state, and onorganizations above the level of the state. Indeed, the proclamation
clause of the preamble states that “every individual and every organof society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive byteaching 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.” Moreover, Article
28 provides that “everyone is entitled to a social and international orderin which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
fully realized.”© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.10

72

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

For some rights – such as the due process provisions in Articles 9 to
11 – it is obvious that states are the principal targets of the constraints.
For the rest, the explanation for the UDHR’s openness on the questionof responsibilities probably has more to do with the political resistancethat would have met any attempt at explicit specification in 1947 and1948. This would have been especially true of any attempt to specify
international or nation-to-nation obligations in regard to social andeconomic rights. It might also have been true of social and economic
rights generally, inasmuch as debate about the specification of dutybearers would have opened up intense ideological disagreement about
political economy.
While acknowledging the obstacles that would have faced any effort
at specification in 1948, our task now is to expand on the reference to“every individual and every organ of society” in the preamble and on
the reference to everyone as “entitled to a social and international orderin which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
fully realized” in Article 28. The rights in the Declaration should beunderstood as generating duties for states, international institutions,
corporations, private persons, and even rights-bearing individuals
themselves.

5.1 The special role of states
The role of states remains essential. Given the realities of our world – thiswas even more the case in 1948 – states must be regarded as the main
guarantors of the rights of their own citizens. States still control thebasic structure of each nation’s polity and legal system, and the overall
structure of governance in each society. This is true whether we aretalking about civil and political rights or social and economic rights.
States are duty-bound to the human rights of their citizens in several
ways. First, states have inherent responsibility for certain institutions,like the legal system, which human rights directly constrain. Second,
states also have a degree of control over other institutions and structureson which human rights impose limitations. Third, states have a greater
power of enforcement against rights-violators than any other entity insociety. Fourth, and conversely, states can become a major threat tohuman rights. Fifth, and fortunately, states also can furnish – through5. Responsibility for Human Rights

73

the division of their powers – the major safeguard against state-based
threats.
The special position of states is not just a matter of effectiveness andcontrol. States claim a form of legitimacy that distinguishes them fromother entities and agencies operating, whether lawfully or unlawfully,
in a society. The UDHR and the covenants aim to impose human rightsbased conditions on this legitimacy.
The laws and national constitutions of states, in most instances, will be
the first recourse to address any violations of human rights, and should
be regarded as the ordinary mode of human rights implementation.
Indeed, the human rights regime initiated by the UDHR was intended
as a foundation not only for the subsequent covenants and international
agreements, but also for the laws and national constitutions of individual
countries.
In a globalized world, it is also the duty of each state to concern
itself to a certain extent with the human rights of persons outside its
borders, taking into account the following four forms of influence: first,
the effect of the state’s own policies and actions on other countries;
second, the impact on other countries of the way in which it participatesin international institutions; third, the provision and efficacy ofdevelopment aid; and fourth, the response to rights abuses in othercountries, either by way of criticism and public denunciation or, in thelast resort, by intervention and support for intervention.
While states have the primary responsibility for ensuring the humanrights of their citizens, there are numerous examples of situations where
governments no longer control substantial tracts of territory, no longer
control the military or have a monopoly on force, lack legitimacy, andare unable or unwilling to provide public services. In these situations,who is responsible for the human rights of the population? This issue
needs to be urgently addressed by the international community.

5.2 Other entities
The fact that one entity – like a state – has responsibility for a given rightis quite compatible with other entities also having their own obligations.
Rights generate waves of responsibility, and those responsibilities may
fall on an array of duty-bearers.

74

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

a. Sub-national governments
Though national state responsibility is primary, the position of
sub-national governments also needs to be addressed. Often thegovernments of local, devolved, provincial, and state entities haveconsiderable autonomy, and they may not be entirely under the controlof the national government so far as upholding rights is concerned.

b. International institutions
Global and regional institutions, including those associated with theUN (like the Security Council), the IMF, and the World Bank, should
regard themselves as bound by human rights. Even if they do not havean affirmative responsibility to provide what is necessary for rights, they
have a responsibility not to undermine human rights or make them moredifficult to secure. Even when an organization believes itself to havea legal immunity, it is appropriate for that immunity to be waived incases of egregious violations of human rights. The Commission believes
that these responsibilities should be made explicit. The Commission
also calls for international institutions to sign and ratify international
human rights agreements.

c. Corporations
Since 1948, the power concentrated in global companies has reachedunprecedented levels. When country gross domestic product (GDP) is
compared to annual company revenues, half of the 100 largest economies
in the world today are private corporations. States have a responsibility
to exercise appropriate oversight over corporations operating in theirjurisdictions, to ensure their compliance with human rights standards.
In practice, however, many states have been unable or unwilling toact. Companies often operate in weak states where there is a profoundgovernance gap. They have also flexed their political and economic
influence to undermine state oversight, by demanding deregulation andby lobbying for business-friendly regulations that diminish the capacityof governments to promote environmental and social protection.

5. Responsibility for Human Rights75

In light of this expansion in corporate power and the governancegap in many states, there should be a firm expectation that companies
will respect human rights. Stakeholders, shareholders, employees,
and constituencies including civil society, responsible investors, tradeunions, and consumers are increasingly demanding that corporations
attend seriously to policies and practices addressing human rights.
Generational shifts in attitudes to consumption and broader access to
information on company operations through new media sources arealso exerting pressure on companies to comply with the human rights
standards applicable to their industries. In 2011, the UN adopted the
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which establishes
a “protect, respect and remedy framework” that requires businesses
to adhere to policies and practices that respect human rights in their
day-to-day business operations. Over time, companies have also agreed
to be bound by various international obligations, for example throughtheir participation in the framework of the International Labour
Organization (ILO), which is committed to dialogue and cooperation
among governments, employers, and workers, and to the developmentof standards addressing conditions of work.
Given that the bulk of the world’s employment is in the private
sector, the Commission considers that certain provisions of the UDHR,
such as Article 23 on the conditions of work, should be interpreted as
imposing duties on corporations. Of course, national governments
have the primary responsibility for establishing and enforcing thelegal frameworks within which businesses operate. But in the many
situations where national governments are failing to protect their own
people, it is incumbent on global corporations and their investors andfinanciers to develop and abide by human rights standards that extend
beyond the jurisdiction of any one state.
We must also accept that the role and importance of businessorganizations reaches beyond conditions of work. Corporations havebecome important actors alongside states, and perform governancefunctions that transcend their roles as employers and workplace
proprietors. They also play a prominent part in the communities inwhich they operate, and have a major impact on issues of migration,
food security, the empowerment of women, and environmental
sustainability. Consequently, companies have obligations in these areas,

76

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

not only to respect but also to advance human rights in the states where
they do business.
There are reasons to believe that the influence of large global
companies will continue to multiply. This points to the need for new
mechanisms to strengthen corporate compliance with human rights.
Engaged citizens, stakeholders, and civil society groups have an
indispensable role to play in working with corporations to develop
practical and effective ways to secure human rights. Such efforts should
be undertaken in collaboration with national governments, taking into
account the willingness and capacity of states to protect their own
people. When states fail to act, corporations and other stakeholders
need to develop alternative measures to ensure that basic rights arebeing respected.
Thus companies need to work with key stakeholders to develop
industry minimum standards on human rights, and metrics tomonitor and assess compliance. Multi-stakeholder initiatives that holdbusinesses accountable to agreed standards through reporting andmonitoring can help drive a race to the top and give consumers andinvestors the information they need and are now demanding to guidetheir purchasing and investment decisions.
Home states, which directly benefit from the economic activity
generated by global companies, must take steps to ensure that companies
under their jurisdiction respect human rights in their operations abroad.

d. Private persons
The Commission is attracted to the idea that individuals – ordinary men
and women – should be thought of as the ultimate bearers of the duties
that correspond to human rights. In the final analysis it is everyone’s
responsibility to respect and look out for each other’s rights. (This does
not replace the primary responsibility of states, since states are the main
mechanism through which people carry out their duties in regard tohuman rights and the mechanism by which their duties are coordinatedand made effective.)
With respect to rights that rely on fiscal resources – social andeconomic rights in particular – individuals have clear duties as
taxpayers. More generally, citizens have negative duties not to oppose

5. Responsibility for Human Rights77

or agitate against human rights. They may also have positive duties
to form social movements and NGOs that actively support and lobby
for human rights. They have duties to play their part in maintaining aculture of rights in society and in the world at large. And individuals
have the responsibilities of global citizenship in relation to the specificdemands of human rights.
Article 29(1) of the UDHR is germane in this context. It asserts that“everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and fulldevelopment of his personality is possible.” From the perspective ofglobal citizenship, “community” means not just the national community
but also the world community, whose structures increasingly protect ordeny human rights at every level: local, national, and global.

5.3 Responsibilities of rights-bearers
Finally, we emphasize again that rights-bearers themselves have
responsibilities with respect to their own rights and responsibilities asrights-bearers to the rights system as a whole and to society generally.
The responsibility of rights-bearers requires us to recognize that:rights may at times be legitimately limited; there is a duty to listen to
and consider any reasons given for the limitation of rights; and that thefulfilment of some rights is costly and that this may render rights not
immediately achievable. In a sense, these responsibilities recognize theneed for us to have a democratic dialogue about the fulfilment of rights,
and a dialogue requires a commitment to both listening and engaging.
We believe that if the value of dialogue on rights is recognized, theprotection and fulfilment of human rights is likely to be advanced.
Some commentators argue that rights-bearers often act irresponsibly
in claiming human rights protections by being over-zealous in pursuingrights campaigns or by adopting the posture of victim. In our view, suchcommentary risks downplaying or soft-pedalling human rights abusesor blocking serious and important interpretive debates. Human rights
are designed, among other things, to protect people from the worst evils
that can be inflicted on them. They are designed to facilitate a clamoring
for attention for victims of abuse, even when this is uncomfortable forother members of society. We must never lose sight of this.

78

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Sometimes the complaint is that rights are being claimed byindividuals who have already shown that they are socially irresponsibleor who are accused of crimes or suspected of terrorism. We believe that
not the slightest concession should be made to this critique of humanrights. Just as Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR are intended, among otherpurposes, to protect those who hold dissident views or who believe
in an unpopular creed, so certain human rights must be understoodas operating for the benefit of those who have come under public
suspicion of crime or other anti-social activity. We view with horror thesuggestion that these protections should be diminished on the groundsof “responsibility.”
Of course, a culture of human rights should not foster a purely passive
sense of entitlement. This may be even truer when we think about socialand economic rights that specify and privilege certain material intereststhat all people have – interests in social security, in an income sufficientfor “an existence worthy of human dignity,” in rest and leisure, in acertain standard of living and of health, and so on. That these rights are
expressed as such in a document that – whatever else it does – imposes
duties upon states should not be read as meaning that the state has thesole responsibility here. Instead, and this must be acknowledged andemphasized, the UDHR assumes that primary provision for most ofthese rights will be made by individuals themselves through gainful
work and employment. That is the heart of Article 23. It affirms that,
wherever possible, individuals have a duty to provide for themselves
and for those who are dependent upon them. And in recognizing thatthe economy must be such as to satisfy certain conditions – adequate
remuneration, justice in the conditions of work, worker organization,and holidays with pay, amongst others – the UDHR by no means retreats
from the position that in this context individuals too are responsible forthemselves.
Nor is any such retreat envisioned in the Declaration’s call to makeprovision, socially and collectively if necessary, for the well-beingof the most vulnerable. Again, that does not detract from the centralprinciple in these articles that individuals, broadly speaking, have a
responsibility as well as a right to work for a living. The Commission
is adamantly opposed to any critique of social and economic rights that
ignores this or that contends or implies that social and economic rights
foster a culture of idle entitlement.

5. Responsibility for Human Rights

79

5.4 No closed model of responsibility
It would be a mistake to develop a rigid or closed model of responsibility
for rights, or to conclude that rights are of no value until responsibilities
are actually specified. The advantage of specifying rights first is that
this provides a basis for thinking about the duties of the state and otherentities.
The Commission has judged that it is both sensible and essential
to retain an open and developing sense of where responsibilities lie,
since the environment in which rights have to be satisfied is constantly
changing.

6. Implementation of
Human Rights

6.1 Introduction
The framers of the UDHR, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, envisaged threeparts to the postwar human rights enterprise: a set of general principles;the codification of those principles into law; and practical means of
implementation.1
Today implementation takes many forms, ranging from topdown monitoring by human rights treaty bodies and adjudication byinternational courts and tribunals, to capacity building in civil society
organizations and human rights education at the grass-roots level.
We should recognize that effective implementation includes not only
retrospective complaint mechanisms, but also forward-looking efforts
to cultivate respect for human rights. This is reflected in the mandate of
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is bothto promote and protect human rights.
1	Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (London: Random House, 2001), Chapter 6. At its
second meeting – in Geneva in December 1947 – the Human Rights Commission
pressed forward in three working groups. The first group, chaired by Eleanor
Roosevelt, worked on the draft Declaration. The second group, chaired by Lord
Dukeston of the United Kingdom, sought to prepare a draft Convention. The thirdgroup, chaired by Hansa Mehta of India, investigated methods of implementationthat might or might not later be incorporated into a Covenant.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.11

82

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

The Commission’s starting point in considering human rights
implementation is Article 28 of the UDHR, which provides that“everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which therights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”
This statement invites us to focus on the disparity between the world as
it is, and the world we should hope to live in. More specifically, it raises
the question of why the human rights embedded in the UDHR are
far from realized today, and what more the international community
can – and must – do to make real the ideal of human rights for all. Thissection of the report deals with that challenge.
In sections 6.2 and 6.3, we look at particular areas of rights, to give an
indication of how the implementation of human rights is faring, and wedevelop a number of specific suggestions. In 6.4, we take on some moregeneral issues about sovereignty and state responsibility, identifying
the obstacles to and the opportunities for the greater vindication ofhuman rights.

6.2 State of play on representative rights
The Commission has considered the implementation of the following
representative provisions of the UDHR: the anti-slavery provision(Article 4); the anti-torture provision (Article 5); the free expression
provision (Article 19) and the free association provision (Article 20);and the education provision (Article 26). We singled out these articles
because they represent some of the most pressing human rights concernsof the early twenty-first century.
We set out below short summaries of the Commission’s conclusions
with respect to each of these rights. The full case studies, on which thesefindings are based, are set out in Online Appendix E.22	Appendix E, on Human Rights Implementation, is available at https://www.
openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783742189#resources. The case studies on
the anti-slavery provision, the anti-torture provision, the free expression andfree association provisions, and the education provision were prepared for theCommission by the Center on Global Justice (University of California, San Diego).
The case study on the equality and non-discrimination provision – which theCommission also considered in its analysis of human rights implementation – wasprepared by Dr. Dimitrina Petrova, the founding Executive Director of the Equal
Rights Trust.

6. Implementation of Human Rights83

a. Anti-slavery (Article 4)
Slavery constitutes a profound human rights violation and an affront toany sense of human dignity. While definitions vary, at its core slavery
involves one person taking away another person’s freedom – theirfreedom to leave their workplace or employer/slavemaster at their own
choosing, to control their body, to choose their work – so that they canbe exploited. This is achieved not through lawful means (as is the casewith military service or imprisonment) but through threats, violence, or
coercion.
The concept of slavery and slavery-like practices can cover a rangeof practices, including forced labor (e.g., debt bondage, serfdom, andforced sex work), exploitative child labor (e.g., child soldiers), descentbased slavery, forced or servile marriage (e.g., exchanging a woman for
payment), and human trafficking. They all have in common an inability
for the individual to leave a workplace or employer/slavemaster at theirown free will.
Article 4 of the UDHR asserts that “No one shall be held in slavery
or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.” This prohibition has been reaffirmed in a range of treaty
provisions: Article 8 of the ICCPR, Article 5 of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 6 of the American Convention
on Human Rights, Article 10 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights,
Article 13 of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Human Rights
Declaration, and Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalizes, as
crimes against humanity, enslavement, sexual slavery, and enforced
prostitution. As war crimes, it criminalizes sexual slavery and enforced
prostitution. In addition, there are a number of conventions that aim
to eradicate slavery, most notably the 1926 Slavery Convention, as
amended by the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolitionof Slavery; the 2000 International Labour Organization Convention
Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Eliminationof the Worst Forms of Child Labour; and the 2000 Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women andChildren. In 2007, the Human Rights Council established a Special
Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes andconsequences.

84

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Despite this extensive array of treaty provisions embodying thespirit of Article 4 of the UDHR, slavery persists across the world, evenin countries that have ratified anti-slavery treaties. According to ILO
estimates, almost 21 million individuals across the globe were forcedlaborers in 2012; 11.4 million of them were female and 9.5 million weremale. Walk Free estimates of modern slavery – which include forced
marriage – place the number of people living in servitude far higher
at 35.8 million. Children are particularly vulnerable, especially as childsoldiers, domestic servants, and sex slaves. Against this reality, theU.S. Department of State estimates that there are only around 10,000
prosecutions annually for human trafficking offences.
Clearly, the task of preventing slavery is not as straightforward as
simply declaring it to be illegal. Slavery has different root causes, andmany factors that sustain both vulnerability to enslavement and theimpunity of offenders. Conflict, corruption, poverty, and discrimination
are key drivers of vulnerability, as are historical relationships ofpower, colonialism, and exploitation – relationships that have become
embedded in local culture and social norms. Weak rule of law, the failureof legal systems to operate effectively across international borders,failure of social safety nets, and even the normalization of some formsof exploitation facilitate the continued existence of slavery.
Ending slavery is deeply connected with the mission of the UDHR.
This will require a deep focus on discrimination and inequality, andthe systems that allow these to persist. It will require governments,
corporations, and private citizens to focus serious attention (andresources) on practical realization of the social and economic rightsthat allow people to protect themselves from slavery, whether this isthrough social insurance in times of shocks, food and shelter in times ofcrisis, or their ability to access decent work. It will require governments
to address the corruption that perpetuates the impunity of offenders.

b. Anti-torture (Article 5)
Torture has enduring effects on the physical, mental, and emotional
well-being of its survivors, crippling or destroying their abilities topursue fulfillment and happiness. In many nations, torture is used to
extract confessions from alleged criminals or political prisoners. Tortureis utterly inconsistent with basic human rights.

6. Implementation of Human Rights

85

Article 5 of the UDHR states: “No one shall be subjected to tortureor to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Since
torture has devastating consequences for its victims, the international
prohibition against it is absolute. Article 7 of the ICCPR reaffirms the
UDHR’s proscription of torture, and expressly bans non-consensual
medical or scientific experimentation. Most importantly, the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment obliges every country to takeeffective legislative, administrative, and judicial measures to prevent
torture in any territory under its jurisdiction (Article 2.1), and forbids
states from sending a person to another state where they would be indanger of being tortured (Article 3). The 158 state parties to CAT are
required to ban the use of evidence obtained through torture in theircourts (Article 15). In addition, CAT provides that all state parties mustensure “education and information regarding the prohibition against
torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel,”or any other persons who are involved in interrogations of thosearrested, detained, or imprisoned (Article 10.1).
The repudiation of torture is supposed to be realized in international
law through three primary mechanisms. First, CAT establishes a
Committee against Torture that reviews reports submitted by stateparties on the measures they have taken to fulfill their obligations under
the convention. The Committee also initiates inquiries concerning
allegations of systematic torture by a state party. Second, the Optional
Protocol to CAT (OPCAT) establishes an international inspection systemfor places of detention with the objective of preventing torture, modeledon the system that has existed in Europe since 1987 (the Committee
for the Prevention of Torture). Third, in 1985 the UN Commission on
Human Rights established the Special Rapporteur on torture and othercruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special
Rapporteur examines relevant questions in all countries, regardless ofwhether a state has ratified CAT or OPCAT.
Nevertheless, torture remains a shamefully common practice.
Amnesty International reported that torture occurred in 144
countries – scattered across all continents – between January 2009 and
May 2013. Torture takes many forms. In 2013 to 2014 alone, Amnesty
International documented over 27 variants worldwide, the mostcommon of which were beatings, electric shocks, stress positions,extended isolation, and whipping.

86

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Why is torture so persistent and pervasive? First, many countries
have not adopted domestic laws criminalizing it. Second, even where
there are laws against torture, real steps to bar it are often not taken.
Third, victims frequently come from the ranks of the marginal and thevulnerable such as minority groups, the poor, and opposition politicalparties and movements. They have little or no power to demand andobtain redress. Fourth, international efforts to combat torture arelimited by a lack of data identifying where violations occur most andwho suffers them most. Finally, anti-torture efforts are undermined by
the widespread misconception that torture is an efficient and reliable
shortcut to establish guilt and secure justice. A survey conducted in
2013–2014 by Amnesty International across 21 countries and 21,000
respondents found that over a third of them agreed that torture issometimes “necessary and acceptable.”c. Free expression (Article 19) andfree association (Article 20)
Although enumerated in separate articles of the UDHR (Articles 19
and 20), freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, and association(collectively, expression rights) are inextricably linked. Expression rights
are both essential for good government and central to the affirmation of
the dignity of every individual. They are accordingly the hallmark of afree and open society.
Article 19 affirms: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinionand 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 is similarly
emphatic: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association,” and “(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an
association.”
Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR collectively declare wide-ranging
rights in the domains of opinion, expression, assembly, and association.
Article 19 guarantees the right to “hold opinions without interference,” aswell as the ability to “seek and impart information and ideas of all kinds[...] through any other media regardless of frontiers.” Article 21 upholds

6. Implementation of Human Rights87

the right to peaceful assembly, while Article 22 insists on the right to freeassociation, including, notably, “the right to form and join trade unions.”
Article 8 of the ICESCR extends the right to trade unions to national andinternational confederations, and clearly enshrines the right to strike asa bargaining tool. The ICCPR and ICESCR establish a set of exceptions
to expression, assembly, and association rights, for the protection ofnational security, public order and safety, and public health and morals.
A number of other international treaties have widened the writ of the
ICCPR and the ICESCR, setting out distinct prohibitions against specifictypes of dissent-suppression. Most prominently, the Convention
for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Womenand the Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly declare that
expression rights are women’s rights and children’s rights too. Regional
treaties – including the European Convention on Human Rights, theAmerican Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Humanand People’s Rights, and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration – have
likewise broadened the recognition of expression rights in the postwar period. Generally, regional treaties have followed the templateof the ICCPR, protecting conscience, expression, association, andassembly – with exceptions for public health and morals, national
security, public order, and harm to others’ rights and reputations.
Although there has been a degree of progress in securing expression
rights, they are not observed today in many parts of the world. The
Commission notes that three actors bear particular responsibility foradvancing expression rights: states, international organizations, andcorporations.
States are obviously of key importance here. Although many national
constitutions affirm rights to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly,
and association, they are impermissibly circumscribed by states.
Restrictions on expression rights must be proportionate, necessary,and lawful in order to be justified. However, many countries routinely
suppress expression, particularly political dissent. State interferencein four areas is of pressing concern: first, Internet censorship andsurveillance; second, the blocking of funds to civil society organizations(CSOs); third, burdensome restraints on assembly; and fourth, thedetention of and violence directed at journalists.

88

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

International organizations must also defend and extend expression
rights. Currently a number of international organizations erect barriers
to CSO participation and engagement with their work. They should
reduce barriers to participation in their decision-making and foster
active stakeholder engagement. Corporations too have an obligation toobserve expression rights, including the right to unionize and to protest
near places of business.

d. Education (Article 26)
The right to education is both a human right in itself and an indispensablemeans of realizing other human rights. Education empowers individuals
to raise themselves out of poverty and advance their socio-economic
status. Politically and socially, education offers people the necessary
skills to identify common goals, assume a full and active place incommunity life, recognize manipulative media practices, and resist
oppression. Despite its vital importance in securing human rights andadvancing socio-economic development, education commands too little
media attention. There is a stubborn and unacceptable gap between
education needs and available resources. Indeed, total global financial
support for education has actually fallen in recent years.
The right to education is articulated in Article 26 of the UDHR,
which emphasizes universality, equal access, and the role of educationin promoting respect for human rights and tolerance among nations
and social groups. The right to education is likewise reaffirmed
in Article 13 of the ICESCR and Articles 28 and 29 of the CRC. The
major regional human rights instruments similarly recognize auniversal right to education, including the African Charter on Humanand Peoples’ Rights (Article 17(1)), the European Convention on
Human Rights (Article 2 of the First Protocol), and the Associationof Southeast Asian Nations’ Human Rights Declaration (Article 31).
One exception is the American Convention on Human Rights, whichlacks a specific provision on education. The Commission on Human
Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur on Education in 1998. In 2000,
the Special Rapporteur developed the Right to Education Project,

6. Implementation of Human Rights

89

supported by prominent international NGOs, including ActionAid
International, Amnesty International, Save the Children, and Human
Rights Watch. Again and again the international community has set
higher goals for progress in education. Quantitative targets have been
set in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Education for
All (EFA) movement, and the SDGs.
Unfortunately, although gains were made on these goals in the early
2000s – reducing the number of out of school children from 120 million
to less than 60 million – further progress has stalled. For example, inrecent years, the number of out of school children has increased from58 to 59 million. In order to reverse this trend, the 4-A framework
for education must be fulfilled. The 4-A framework emphasizes
availability of educational institutions and programs, the physicaland economic accessibility of educational institutions and programsto everyone without discrimination, the acceptability of curricula andteaching methods (e.g., culturally appropriate and good quality), andthe adaptability of education to diverse social and cultural settings, aswell as to students’ special requirements.
There are four primary barriers to achieving the right to education:
first, lack of investment and finance; second, economic barriers toaccess for both children and adults; third, discrimination, particularly
gender-based discrimination; and fourth, challenges in large-scale
emergency situations. According to a 2015 UNESCO report, anannual financing gap of 39 billion USD will have to be met from2015–2030, totaling 585 billion USD over the fifteen-year period, if theinternational community is to achieve universal pre-primary, primary,and secondary education of decent quality in low and lower-middle
income countries.
Delivering the right to education has far-reaching benefits. The
Global Partnership for Education estimates that the increase in
women’s education, for instance, has prevented over four million
child deaths. Similarly, if all children were to acquire basic reading
skills, the Partnership estimates that 171 million people would be liftedfrom poverty, a reduction in global poverty rates of 12 percent. Over40 years, a mere 0.1 percent improvement in a country’s educational
equality can increase per capita GDP by 23 percent.

90

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

e. Summary
In our examination of the implementation of select rights in the
Declaration – which looked beyond the representative rights we havelisted here – a number of themes emerged.
First, the UDHR represents the founding document in a processof progressive elaboration of human rights. As we approach the 70th
anniversary of the Declaration, this achievement should be celebrated.
Second, historic progress has been made in the promotion andprotection of rights since 1948, including the development of a body ofhuman rights law and implementation mechanisms that simply could
not have been envisioned in the 1920s and 1930s. It is vital to accountfor, understand, and take this development seriously as a platform forfurther progress.
Third, despite the gains, we must recognize and respond to the realitythat human rights continue to be violated on an alarming scale acrossthe globe, even by nations that have signed the relevant human rights
treaties. Our case studies demonstrate that it is the poorest people andcountries, and the most vulnerable members of society – particularly
women and children, ethnic and religious minorities, migrants andrefugees, and persons with disabilities – who are most susceptible
to human rights violations. They also remind us that violations are
conducted and perpetuated not only by states, but also by internationalorganizations, corporations, and private persons.
Fourth, the fullness of human rights will only be achieved
through multiple overlapping and coordinated mechanisms. We
need mechanisms that operate at both the international and national
levels, and which engage both governmental and non-governmental
institutions. Human rights education also has an indispensable role toplay.
The Commission hopes that the brief case studies appended illustrate
the great challenges that remain in achieving the widespread andregular application and enforcement of human rights standards. It isbeyond the scope of the Commission’s work to examine the full range of
mechanisms that promote and protect rights. Instead we have identified
four areas for particular analysis: first, the UN system of human rights
implementation; second, national and regional legal systems; third,

6. Implementation of Human Rights91

non-governmental organizations; and fourth, human rights education.
In singling out these four areas, the Commission does not suggest that
other mechanisms are not important. They are. The project of humanrights implementation will require ongoing analysis, review, and hard
work in the decades ahead.

6.3 Suggestions on implementation
a. Recommendations for strengthening the UN systemon human rights implementation
Much action is still needed to ensure that the rights so eloquently
espoused in the UDHR, and codified by the later covenants andconventions, are made realities in life as well as law. In this section, theCommission supports a number of existing proposals for improving
the UN system for the protection of human rights. We call on the UN
to establish a commission to consider these and other proposals forrealizing Article 28 of the Declaration.

i. Implement the recommendations of
UN human rights mechanisms
There are different human rights monitoring mechanisms in the United
Nations system, based either on the UN Charter or on UN treaties. The
most prominent Charter-based bodies are the Human Rights Council
and its regime of Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review(UPR). Of the ten current human rights treaty bodies, nine monitor
implementation of the core international human rights treaties while theSubcommittee on Prevention of Torture monitors places of detention instates that are party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against
Torture.
The UN human rights mechanisms produce a rich array of findings,
decisions, and recommendations, many on a country-by-country
basis, including recommendations adopted by treaty bodies after
examining the implementation of a human rights treaty by a state

92

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

party; recommendations issued by Special Procedures of the Human
Rights Council in reports on country visits, thematic reports, andcommunications on individual cases; recommendations stemming fromthe UPR; and recommendations of commissions of inquiry, fact-finding
missions, and other ad hoc human rights investigations initiated by the
Human Rights Council, the Security Council, the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, or the UN Secretary-General.
But the problems and priorities identified through UN human rights
mechanisms do not command sufficient attention and action from theinternational community and the UN as a whole, including its security
and development endeavors. The UN should enhance its system-wide
support and follow-up aimed at ensuring the findings, decisions, andrecommendations made – country by country – by the UN’s humanrights mechanisms are enforced through a better alignment between
human rights and development. For instance, the OECD Development
Assistance Committee should recognize that, in order to be effective,
official development assistance must increasingly address the good
governance, rule of law, and human rights gaps revealed by the humanrights mechanisms, especially when recipient countries accept andagree with stipulated changes.

ii. Enhance the OHCHR’s field presence
Away from its headquarters in Geneva, the operations of the Office ofthe High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) can be strategic
entry points for pursuing human rights at country level, integratinga human rights perspective into the work of United Nations country
teams and peace missions, and strengthening national institutions andcivil society. OHCHR’s field operations already scrutinize the humanrights situations in specific countries, while also building the capacity ofMember States and other duty-bearers to address shortfalls and abuses.
Over the years, the OHCHR has gradually widened its presencein the field; however, its operations are not yet fully fit for purpose.
First, OHCHR is underrepresented: it has 65 field presences but only
13 country offices – compared to the World Bank or United Nations
Development Programme, for example, which maintain permanent
offices in well over 100 member countries. Moreover, the OHCHR’s
regional offices provide no coverage in North-East Asia, South Asia,

6. Implementation of Human Rights

93

and North America. Second, its field operations are underfunded.
Indeed human rights account for less than 3 percent of the UN’s regularbudget, which inhibits the ability of the OHCHR to effectively monitor
and champion human rights on the ground.
The UN should expand the OHCHR’s regional and country fieldpresence and significantly raise its financial support for priority humanrights activities in line with countries’ legal obligations and politicalcommitments made in the UPR. This is crucial to strengthening national
human rights protection systems through development cooperation as
well as peace-keeping and peace-building budgets. It will enhance theprevention of violations and the success and sustainability of peace anddevelopment efforts.
Of course, none of this is of any consequence unless states cooperate
with, allow access for, and do not inhibit or intimidate UN personnel
seeking to promote and protect rights and to investigate alleged abuses.

iii. Raise human rights concerns forconsideration by the UN Security Council
There is no formal procedure permitting UN human rights bodies totake the initiative in raising an issue for consideration by the Security
Council. In recent years, it has become increasingly common for the
OHCHR and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council tobrief the Security Council through an informal procedure known as the“Arria-formula.” However, such sessions can be convened only at theinitiative of a member or members of the Security Council and then theextent to which such sessions are convened depends on the Presidencyof the Council.
Human rights concerns are root causes of conflict, and early action
by the UN system and the international community can prove critical in
averting violence. The Secretary-General already has the power under
Article 99 of the UN Charter to bring to the Security Council any matterthat may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
We urge the Secretary-General to exercise this power whenever advised
to do so by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special
Procedures of the Human Rights Council, or the heads of the humanrights components of UN peace missions.

94

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

iv. Limit the UN Security Council veto in
the case of mass atrocities
Again and again, vetoes or threats of vetoes by permanent members(the P5) have blocked Security Council action to maintain international
peace and security in a range of crises. The Council’s inability to act onbehalf of civilians in Syria and elsewhere has not only had a massive
cost in human life, but has dangerously eroded the credibility of the UN
system. Inaction has given the green light to perpetrators to engage inever more flagrant human rights abuses.
To address this, France has proposed that the P5 voluntarily suspendveto rights in situations involving mass atrocities. In the wake of theevents in Syria, France has argued that such a step would enhance thelegitimacy of the Security Council, strengthen its integrity, restore thepower of discussion and constructive negotiation, and convey the willof the international community to make the protection of human life atrue priority. The logic here is clear: when the misuse of the veto blocks
action to stem atrocities, it contravenes the principles of the UN. All
Member States should support the French initiative for restraining theveto in the case of mass atrocities.
More generally, the P5 should accept an affirmative obligation tooffer a reasoned justification for any exercise of the veto, and to propose
an alternative plan in accordance with international law to achieve thesame objectives.

v. Harness technology to enhance human rights accountability
Advances in technology since 1948, and particularly the creation of
the Internet, present an unprecedented opportunity to amplify humanrights accountability. The UN should encourage and enable thedevelopment at the country level – by national human rights institutionsand (currently only a few) Parliaments’ Human Rights Committees – ofonline platforms through which citizens can rate their governments’performance on human rights issues. This can empower citizens toexert pressure on governments responsible for violations.
In addition, we recommend a direct mechanism supported by
the UN, which could take two forms. First, an online “complaint6. Implementation of Human Rights95

clearinghouse” would let citizens register complaints about humanrights abuses directly with the UN. The clearinghouse would help
overcome existing data shortcomings on human rights and enable the
OHCHR and other human rights mechanisms to target their activities
more accurately. Second, a global human rights wiki, accessible to andeditable by recognized human rights organizations, would equip therelevant actors to readily combine and share data regarding ongoingcrises, improving both the speed and effectiveness of global responses.
The UN should consider these measures and others to harness new
forms of technology that can widen the writ and reach of human rights
for all in the twenty-first century.
As such mechanisms are put in place, we should meet the inevitableneed to provide protection and security for those who take the risk ofidentifying and complaining about human rights violations. Encryptionof the relevant technology can have the effect of encouraging people tosubmit testimony and evidence that might then be put to good use by
the international community.

b. National and regional legal systems
Many of the suggestions we have made have to do with global
institutions and NGOs. However, we should never forget a point
we have stressed a number of times in this document, that the frontline work of upholding human rights is always conducted under the
auspices of national constitutions and bills of rights. They are intended
to provide primary protections, through national legal systems. And
any account of implementation must look to them, in the first instance,
because at too many times and in too many places, between the intention
and the reality falls a dark shadow.
This implies that, as we scrutinize the human rights recordsof particular countries, we should pay attention not only to theirconstitutional arrangements, but also to the work that is being done bylawyers and rights-related NGOs in those countries. So, for example,
no account of human rights implementation in the United States canbe complete without a full account of the way in which state andnational bills of rights operate, nor without an account of the way inwhich bar associations and groups like the American Civil Liberties

96

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Union advocate for the protection of rights domestically. The point isperhaps obvious in the case of the United States. It may be less obvious
in developing nations and emerging democracies, where there is a
temptation to think that all the work has to be done by outside agencies
assisting with development and nation-building.
The judiciary has a pivotal role to play in upholding human rights.
Only an independent judiciary can render justice impartially on thebasis of law, thereby assuring the rights and fundamental freedomsof the individual. The basic principle is laid down in Article 10 of
the UDHR: “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determinationof his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”
In this era, however, in country after country, there has been a rising
wave of attacks on the independence of judges, lawyers, prosecutors,
and court officials, particularly in the form of threats, intimidation,and interference in the discharge of their professional functions. Theinternational community must redouble its resolve to safeguard andenhance the independence and effectiveness of judiciaries worldwide,in line with existing international principles of the rule of law.
Consistent with this imperative, the international community
should pay attention to the impact of statutes of limitation governing
human rights claims. California became the first American jurisdiction,
through recently enacted legislation, to offer survivors of abuse a longer
period of time to bring their claims to court. This legislation – California
Assembly Bill 15 – extended the period from two years to 10 years forserious transgressions such as torture, war crimes, extrajudicial killing,crimes against humanity, and human trafficking. This reform should
provoke a wide-ranging discussion of the procedural obstacles to theeffective implementation of human rights.
Regional human rights courts are and can be powerful instruments
for the vindication of human rights. This is the purpose of the European
Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The international
community should aim to bolster the role of these institutions, ensuringthat they have both sufficient resources and competent personnel. Theinternational community should also encourage the development of
new regional human rights courts by the League of Arab States and6. Implementation of Human Rights

97

in Asia and the Pacific. These courts should hear complaints not only
from state parties, but also from individuals. All UN Member Statesshould agree to submit themselves to the authority of international
tribunals whose jurisdiction can appropriately – geographically orotherwise – be extended to them. Given that compliance has not always
been automatic, we reiterate that state parties have a binding obligation
under the treaties creating these courts to give effect to their rulings.
At the global level, the UN should consider the creation of a World
Human Rights Court, consistent with the principle of complementarity.
While this is presently an aspiration, considered and considerable
thought should be given to whether a World Human Rights Court
could reinforce the maintenance of human rights across the globe.

c. NGOs
The implementation of human rights does not depend just on official
institutions. It presupposes and is enriched by a vigilant civil society atnational, regional, and international levels. The Human Rights Council
already accredits a number of NGOs specifically dedicated to humanrights. Such organizations play a frontline role in highlighting theimportance of the rights protected in the UDHR, in drawing attention
to shortcomings in their implementation, and in naming and shaming
governments that are guilty of violations or of failing to protect theircitizens from human rights abuses. In light of this, it is especially
important that states make reasonable accommodation for NGOs
aiming to promote, protect, and investigate violations of human rights.

d. Human rights educationi. The UDHR and human rights education for all
The preamble of the UDHR states that “every individual and everyorgan of society shall strive by teaching and education to promoterespect for these rights and freedoms.”

98

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

ii. The UDHR and human rights education since 1948
Since 1948, the ideals of the UDHR and later instruments have gained
greater acceptance and achieved greater realization, and human rights
education (HRE) has advanced alongside this. In the first few decades
after the UDHR, HRE consisted mostly of legal training focused on
the formal standards codified by the UN and other intergovernmentalorganizations, or else popular education carried out by NGOs in
the global south. In the 1970s, UNESCO promoted HRE, and social
movements adopted human rights discourse to support legal campaigns
for the effectuation of human rights at the national and international
levels. Meanwhile, as national educational systems were expanding inscope and competence across the world, newer and older democracies
alike started and continued to incorporate HRE into formal education,although mostly in the legal rather than the popular sphere.
UNESCO’s third congress on HRE in Montreal in 1993 proposeda world plan of action on education for human rights and democracy,
endorsed that same year by the World Conference on Human Rights
in Vienna, which proposed a Decade for Human Rights Education. The
next year, with the support of HRE NGOs, the UN General Assembly
proclaimed that decade would run from 1995 to 2004. The General
Assembly created a World Programme for HRE in 2005, and in 2012
adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education
and Training, which outlined the obligations of states and otherduty-bearers to implement HRE universally. It mandated educational
training, information, awareness-raising, and learning activities aimed
at promoting universal respect for and observance of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms. The aim was to prevent violations andabuses by providing people with knowledge, skills, and understanding
to shape their own attitudes and behaviors – thus empowering them as
active agents in the building and strengthening of a universal culture ofhuman rights.
The leading international network of HRE actors is HRE2020: The
Global Coalition for Human Rights Education. This alliance was formed
by NGOs in 2014 to encourage and enhance the HRE compliance ofstates by raising awareness and urging progress, by integrating HRE
into UN mechanisms, and by monitoring the implementation of HRE
commitments. The coalition has set the year 2020 as a benchmark for6. Implementation of Human Rights

99

assessing the performance of governments, international institutions,and civil society in providing access to quality human rights education.

iii. Transformative human rights education
HRE is necessarily diverse in goals, content, and delivery. Some
educational reforms that followed from the UN’s Decade for Human
Rights Education involved little more than incorporating human rights
language into the educational standards or textbooks of Member States.
The integration of HRE into formal school curricula can be the mosteffective way to broadly execute HRE; but a simultaneous communitybased approach to HRE can help ensure that school children educatedin HRE do not encounter resistance outside the classroom door.
“Transformative HRE” is a community-based approach to HRE,
intended for children, youth, and adults in formal or non-formal settings,
and including cognitive, affective, and action-oriented elements.
Contextualized and relevant studies are paired with interactive
learning to bring human rights to life and to foster in students andcitizens an awareness of global citizenship and a respect for humanrights. Transformative HRE exposes gaps between rights and realities,
and provokes group dialogue on the specific steps essential to closing
the gaps. Learners engage in critical reflection, open discussion, andindividual and collective action to move the cause of human rights
forward locally, nationally, and globally. Transformative HRE can yieldremarkable results for individuals and groups.

iv. Advancing transformative human rights education
Fostering a universal culture of human rights among all individuals andinstitutions through transformative HRE “from the bottom up” can add
important impetus to the adoption and enforcement of legal standards
by governments “from the top down.”
Yet many states lack a national HRE plan for formal education; manywith a plan do not implement it well; and many who implement HRE
focus on its basic legal literacy rather than advancing its transformative
potential. NGOs and other civil society organizations have been the

100

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

most active promoters and implementers of HRE, campaigning for theincorporation of HRE into formal education. The Commission calls on
all governments, international organizations, and NGOs to encourage
and support transformative human rights education.
We see our work as part of a process of public education abouthuman rights, not as an ending, but as a beginning that must be carriedforward. Further details of ongoing HRE initiatives are found in Online
Appendix D.3

6.4 Sovereignty
In addition to the suggestions in the previous section, we must also
consider deeper structural issues that make the implementation ofhuman rights more or less successful. The most prominent is the issue
of national sovereignty. Although, as we stressed in section 6.3(b), much
implementation can be achieved within the legal system of particularcountries, the pressure for progress must sometimes come from theoutside. If domestic policy fails or if human rights are systemically
flouted within a particular society, external pressure may have to cometo the assistance of those whose rights are threatened.
Accordingly, no account of implementation can dispense with thegeneral issue of sovereignty and the way in which it has come to beviewed in the new era of global human rights consciousness.

a. General (human rights as limits on sovereignty)
The era of human rights that was initiated by the UDHR has certainly
disposed of any notion of state sovereignty that purports to insulatestates from external criticism of internal rights violations. Occasionally
we hear countries invoke that insular and outdated notion of sovereignty,
but such claims are increasingly half-hearted and no longer treated as
3	Appendix D, on Human Rights Education, is available at https://www.openbook
publishers.com/isbn/9781783742189#resources. This Appendix was prepared
for the Commission by a working group on human rights education under the
auspices of the Center on Global Justice (University of California, San Diego).

6. Implementation of Human Rights101

credible by the international community. Countries change in their
willingness to accept and listen to criticism from beyond their borders.
In any case, such criticism – including public official comment – is
not to be equated with intervention. Nor is it to be rebutted with therationalization that violations are internal matters and “none of theoutside state’s business.” One principle the UDHR represents, andrightly so, is that human rights in every country are the world’s business.
To that extent, the rights culture inculcated by the UDHR has to a real
degree transformed the world of sovereign states.
The intermediate case is where nations or members of the international
community sponsor NGOs or perhaps opposition parties within
another state – sponsorship that can be characterized as an attempt to
influence the political process of the target state. This is a question onwhich there is considerable disagreement. It is not a matter on which
the UDHR takes sides, except perhaps implicitly in the proclamation
clause’s insistence that “every organ of society [...] shall strive [...] topromote respect for these rights.”
We should not regard it as a failure of the UDHR that it does not
resolve questions like this. They are worked out more effectively inthe terms of the Covenants. But the Commission wishes to affirm: first,
that countries may not misuse their national sovereignty as an excuse
for insulating themselves from external pressure on human rights; andsecond, that it is legitimate for states to raise human rights issues in
conducting foreign relations.

b. Sanctions, denunciations, and other measures
The international community needs a toolkit of governmental andmultilateral responses to rights violations that is more legitimate
and more sophisticated than we have today, and which relies onmechanisms other than the use of force. There are many instruments ofchange used: some widely acknowledged, like trade sanctions; some farless recognized, such as human rights “name and shame” mechanisms;
and others perhaps less clearly articulated, such as providing shelter tomigrants fleeing from neighboring countries in times of great distress.
Armed force is seldom the best option. We recommend that a study be

102The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

undertaken of what governments do when they genuinely want to seek
to change another government’s behavior, and what governments are
susceptible to in terms of real world pressures on human rights.

c. Responsibility to Protect
The Responsibility to Protect – known as RtoP – refers to the obligationof states toward their populations and toward all populations at risk of
genocide and other mass atrocities.
Though the international community – as part of the doctrine of
RtoP – has reserved the right to intervene militarily in countries where
grave and widespread violations are underway, that has been and islikely to remain an exceptional occurrence. We can say that in such cases,
human rights do represent a limit on state sovereignty. But since themost flagrant cases will be rare, and since individual rights violations
on a smaller scale will remain quite frequent, there are questions aboutstate sovereignty and human rights that have to be resolved in thecase of less dramatic violations. Thus, in our view it is wrong to ignore
the wider challenge and rivet attention exclusively on RtoP and theinstances where it may be invoked.
RtoP stipulates three pillars of responsibility: first, every state has the
Responsibility to Protect its people from four grave crimes – genocide,
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing; second, thewider international community has the responsibility to encourage andassist individual states in meeting that obligation; and third, if a stateis manifestly failing to protect its people, the international community
must be prepared to take appropriate collective action in a timely anddecisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.
These principles originated in a 2001 report of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and were endorsedby the United Nations General Assembly in the 2005 World Summit
Outcome Document. In January of 2009, the UN Secretary-Generalreleased a report on implementing the Responsibility to Protect,followed in July by the first General Assembly debate on the issue.
During the debate, UN Member States overwhelmingly reaffirmed
the 2005 commitment and the General Assembly passed a consensus
resolution (A/RES/63/308) taking note of the Secretary-General’s report.

6. Implementation of Human Rights

103

Since then, the Responsibility to Protect has featured prominently ina number of resolutions adopted by the Security Council, including
those in relation to Libya (2011), Côte d’Ivoire (2011), Yemen (2011),
Mali (2012), Syria (2014), South Sudan (2014), and the Central African
Republic (2015).
The Commission supports the concept of RtoP governing theprocess of humanitarian intervention. However, intervention under
the auspices of RtoP will be far from regular and will be appropriate
only in the case of egregious and widespread human rights violations.
Such intervention is certainly justified. But it is no substitute for routine
responsibility for the rights of individuals and it cannot be the main
focus of our analysis of responsibility for rights. Instead we should look,wherever possible, to the regular institutional arrangements in eachsociety, not just to a few dramatic cases.
We have to emphasize that in the final analysis rights are an
individual matter. Every person has rights. And the violation of rights,
the erosion of rights, or the failure to fulfill rights are matters of concern,even when they are not widespread. For example, when a particularwoman or man is tortured or detained without trial, there may be noprospect of any international military mobilization: but a human righthas been trampled on. Too much concentration on RtoP can lead us toassume that human rights violations only become serious when they areen masse and egregious. In a general sense, out of our common humanity,
we all have a responsibility with regard to any violation – even if it is
only sporadic or individual.
The specter of mass atrocity must never lead us to overlook the wrong
that is done when any human right is violated at a lesser level. Any timea violation occurs – which may affect one person or one thousand – wemust take notice. Underpinning this imperative is the principle that theviolation of the rights of anyone is the concern of everyone. Of course, inthe first instance it is the province of every national legal system to deal
with human rights violations within that country. The international
human rights community becomes involved either when this national
responsibility falters, or when the rights violations reach a certain levelof frequency or severity. We know that there is a challenge of setting
priorities here. Not all of us can be on duty all the time. But nobody
is entitled to say of any human rights violation that it is, in principle,“none of my business.”

104

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

When an international response is appropriate, it should be chosenfrom a range of options, depending on circumstances. The selected
response should be consistent with the protection of other rights. It
should be proportionate to the violation; you cannot deploy armed
force over an issue of educational reform. The question must be: “Is this
response producing a net gain for human rights or not?” For the danger
is not just failing to act, but doing more harm than good. On the range ofpossible actions, military intervention for the Rwanda genocide would beat the far end; but the range also spans diplomatic démarches, sanctions,formal findings by state departments, informal protests, and raising
issues at a ministerial level. One of the advantages of this approach isthat the need for coordination mounts at the far end of the range, butdoes not necessarily accrue at the near end. If there is any question ofarmed intervention, that is an issue for the Security Council. If there isa question of sanctions, that is a matter for the international community.
If denunciation is the right option, it is not clear that we need Security
Council clearance. And countries have unilaterally taken up the task ofnaming and shaming rights violators. Therefore, we should confine arequirement for some authoritative multilateral declaration to the far
end of the spectrum: military intervention, and perhaps sanctions too.

7. Human Rights anda Global Ethic

The promulgation of the UDHR in 1948 made a difference in how
people saw their place in the world and their relations with their state
and with each other. This is in itself a valuable contribution, quite apartfrom the securing of the rights actually listed in the document. Overthe decades since 1948, the UDHR has provided the rudiments of a“common conscience” for humanity. To borrow the words of ImmanuelKant, a violation of rights in any place is now felt all around the world.
The international community is continuing to build on this, and the
UDHR should be regarded as one of the pillars of a modern global ethic.
Understandings of a “global ethic” will vary. But the idea seems tocomprise at least the following two elements: first, a set of fundamental
ethical ideas (such as human dignity) that are globally accepted as
establishing a basis on which people deal with one another in the world;and second, a set of principles that arise out of the development of a newkind of interdependent global civil society, with common opportunities
and common dangers. The Commission believes that a globalizing
world needs an ethic of global citizenship, even if we cannot agree on amoral universalist basis for it.
Of course, although human rights are important for a global ethic,
they are only a part of it. Other pillars of a global ethic include:• Good governance and the rule of law, at both national and global
levels.
• Responsibility for planet and climate, and our obligations tofuture generations.
© NYU GIAS, CC BY 

http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0091.12

106

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century• Basic humanitarian responsibility for one another, even whenhuman rights are not directly involved.
• The eradication of extreme poverty.
• Outlawing aggressive war and upholding international security
through the United Nations system as a basis for the resolutionof global conflict.
• The elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction.
• 
A broad commitment to strengthening institutions such as
the United Nations and its agencies, which have paramount
responsibility for the well-being of the international system.
• The maintenance of the cosmopolitan frameworks that enablepeople to relate to one another scientifically, productively,
economically, and culturally all around the world.
These pillars are related to one another and they form an integrated
system. Each of them has pivotal human rights dimensions but eachof them also takes us beyond the field of human rights and opens
up broader vistas of global obligation and participation. One wayof thinking about human rights requirements is that they secure thefoundation on which people can exercise and construct their citizenshipresponsibilities, whether in their own countries or in the world at large.
Without the protections and liberty that human rights are supposed tosecure, it would be difficult for people to lift their gaze beyond their
immediate fears and deprivations.
We think it is imperative, therefore, to reaffirm that human rights
in general and the UDHR in particular contribute immensely to theemergence of a global ethic. A global ethic is not the same as internationallaw. It is something like the shared moral impulse that underlies andsustains international law. Many things need to be comprised in a
global ethic cannot be laid down in precise legal terms. At the sametime, the reality of human rights institutions and the evolution ofinternational human rights law – along with national and regional
declarations of rights, and their accompanying courts – demonstratethat it is possible to build real-world institutions and practices uponthese ethical foundations.

7. Human Rights and a Global Ethic

107

The stated foundations of the UDHR – particularly the principles
of dignity and human solidarity and the rejection of the barbarism
that was experienced in the middle of the twentieth century – are thecenterpiece of an emerging global ethic. The UDHR illustrates thisnot just by stating foundational values in its preamble but by showing
how various human rights flow from these deeper commitments. In
this regard, the very idea of rights is key. The distinctiveness of thecontribution made by human rights to the global ethic is that they
represent the responsibilities that are owed to every individual man,woman, and child on the planet. While some rights are group rights, inthe final analysis the idea of human rights conveys a commitment to theliberty and well-being of individuals. It represents a commitment to theprinciple that no person, however lowly, is to be sacrificed simply for
the well-being of others.
The adoption of the UDHR also demonstrates the prospects andchallenges for ethical consensus in a diverse world. We acknowledge
that, in a sense, its formulations are quite abstract in relation to the richglobal array of cultures, ethics, and religions. But the fact of its adoption
and its longevity indicate that it is possible to identify common
commitments and common respect for humanity.
As part of a global ethic, the UDHR has great educational force andgreat importance in building and sustaining morale among people whoare vulnerable to various forms of oppression. It provides a common
point of reference for them and a conviction that they are not alone inresisting abuses. The Declaration legitimizes their struggles.
Equally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its progeny
have been indispensable in de-legitimizing human rights abuses. The
conviction is now abroad in the world that violating human rights issomething that no person, state, or entity is entitled to do and for which
they may properly be held accountable by the world community at
every level.

Appendix A:
The Universal Declarationof Human Rights

Note: the below text has been annotated with labels for each of the clauses andprovisions (in bold). The Commission refers to these labels throughout thereport.
PREAMBLEa) [the inherent dignity clause] 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 peacein the world,b) [the barbarism and aspiration clause] Whereas disregard andcontempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts whichhave outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of aworld in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech andbelief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as thehighest aspiration of the common people,c) [the rebellion clause] Whereas it is essential, if man is not to becompelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by
the rule of law,d) [the friendly relations clause] Whereas it is essential to promote
the development of friendly relations between nations,

110

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Centurye) [the United Nations clause] 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 andin the equal rights of men and women and have determined topromote social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom,f) [the pledge of respect clause] Whereas Member States havepledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms,g) [the common understanding clause] Whereas a common
understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest
importance for the full realization of this pledge,h) [the proclamation clause] Now, Therefore THE GENERALASSEMBLY 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 everyorgan of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shallstrive by teaching and education to promote respect for theserights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national andinternational, to secure their universal and effective recognition andobservance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves
and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. [the free and equal provision] All human beings are born freeand equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason andconscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. [the universality provision] Everyone is entitled to all therights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinctionof any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political orother 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-governingor under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Appendix A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

111

Article 3. [the right to life provision] Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of person.
Article 4. [the anti-slavery provision] No one shall be held in slavery
or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all theirforms.
Article 5. [the anti-torture provision] No one shall be subjected totorture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. [the legal personality provision] Everyone has the right torecognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. [the non-discrimination provision] All are equal before thelaw and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discriminationin violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to suchdiscrimination.
Article 8. [the remedies provision] Everyone has the right to an effective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating thefundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9. [the arbitrary arrest provision] No one shall be subjected toarbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10. [the right to a hearing provision] Everyone is entitled in fullequality 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. [the due process provision] (1) Everyone charged with apenal 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. (2) 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 onethat was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

112

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Article 12. [the privacy and reputation provision] No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, homeor correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against suchinterference or attacks.
Article 13. [the freedom of movement provision] (1) Everyone has theright to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of eachstate. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country.
Article 14. [the asylum provision] (1) Everyone has the right to seek andto enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may
not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from nonpolitical crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of
the United Nations.
Article 15. [the nationality provision] (1) Everyone has the right to anationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16. [the marriage and family provision] (1) Men and womenof full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled toequal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2)Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of theintending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group
unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17. [the property provision] (1) Everyone has the right to own
property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18. [the thought and worship provision] Everyone has the rightto freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or incommunity with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Appendix A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights



113

Article 19. [the free expression provision] Everyone has the right tofreedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom tohold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. [the free association provision] (1) Everyone has the rightto freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may becompelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. [the democracy provision] (1) Everyone has the right to takepart in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public
service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of theauthority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic andgenuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage andshall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. [the general social security provision] Everyone, as amember of society, has the right to social security and is entitled torealization, through national effort and international co-operation andin accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of theeconomic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity andthe free development of his personality.
Article 23. [the conditions of work provision] (1) Everyone has theright to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2)Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthyof human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means ofsocial protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join tradeunions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. [the rest and leisure provision] Everyone has the right torest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours andperiodic holidays with pay.

114

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Article 25. [the standard of living provision] (1) Everyone has the rightto a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lackof livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhoodand 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. [the education provision] (1) Everyone has the right toeducation. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary andfundamental 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. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of thehuman 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 shallfurther the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shallbe given to their children.
Article 27. [the cultural life provision] (1) Everyone has the right freely
to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts andto share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has theright to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting fromany scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28. [the international order provision] Everyone is entitled to asocial and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forthin this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. [the duties and limitation provision] (1) Everyone has duties
to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined bylaw 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.

Appendix A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights115(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. [the no-abuse provision] Nothing in this Declaration may
be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right toengage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of
any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Appendix B:
Members of the Commission

K. Anthony Appiah
Kwame Anthony Appiah is Professor ofPhilosophy and Law at New York University.
He was born in London, grew up in Ghana, andstudied philosophy at Cambridge University. He
has taught philosophy in Ghana, France, Britain,
and the United States. Among his books are In My
Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture(1992) and Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a Worldof Strangers (2006). Professor Appiah has been
President of the PEN American Center and of the Modern Language
Association and Chair of the Board of the American Philosophical
Association and the American Council of Learned Societies.

Laurel Bellows
Laurel Bellows, founding principal of the Bellows
Law Group, P.C. is past president of the American
Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, andInternational Women’s Forum Chicago. Laurel
is currently serving on the Executive Committeeof the InterAmerican Bar Association. She is aninternationally recognized business lawyer. Her
law firm offers strategic business counseling

118

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

and litigation to businesses of all sizes, counseling senior executives
and corporations on executive employment, severance agreements,
workplace disputes, anti-trafficking risk assessment, supply chain andrecruiting policies, and cybersecurity. Laurel is licensed to practice inIllinois, Florida, and California. She is an arbitrator and certified mediator.

Nicolas Berggruen
Nicolas Berggruen is Chairman of the Berggruen
Institute. The Institute develops and implements
systemic political governance projects andthinking. Through its Philosophy and Culture
Center, it fosters fresh ideas and understanding
between the East and the West. Committed toleaving a legacy of art and architecture, he sitson the boards of the Museum Berggruen, Berlin
and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. He
has worked with some of the world’s leading architects on projects from
India to Turkey and the USA.

Paul BoghossianPaul Boghossian is Julius Silver Professor ofPhilosophy at New York University and Director
of its Global Institute for Advanced Study.
Elected to the American Academy of Arts andSciences in 2012, he has written on a wide rangeof topics including knowledge, meaning, rules,
moral relativism, aesthetics, and the concept of
genocide. He is the author of Fear of Knowledge:
Against Relativism and Constructivism (2006) andContent and Justification: Philosophical Papers (2008); and editor, with
Christopher Peacocke, of New Essays on the A Priori (2000). A volume
collecting a series of his exchanges with Timothy Williamson on
the topics of a priori and analytic truth is forthcoming from Oxford
University Press.

Appendix B: Members of the Commission

119

Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown served as Prime Minister of theUnited Kingdom from 2007 to 2010, Chancellorof the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007, and as a
Member of Parliament in his home county of Fife,
Scotland, from 1983 to 2015. He is the United
Nations Special Envoy for Global Education anda passionate advocate for the rights of children.
He believes every girl and boy deserves theopportunity of a future through schooling. Mr.
Brown has also been appointed Chair of the new Global Commission
on Financing Global Education and serves as New York University’s
inaugural Distinguished Global Leader in Residence.

Craig Calhoun
Craig Calhoun is Director of the London Schoolof Economics and calls it “the dream job foranyone who cares about social science, global
issues, and bringing better knowledge to publicdebates.” In the USA, he was President of theSocial Science Research Council, and taught at
the University of North Carolina, Columbia, and
NYU, where he was most recently University
Professor of Social Sciences and Director of theInstitute for Public Knowledge.
Calhoun’s many publications bring together theory and empiricalresearch across several disciplines. Among his books on politics andsocial movements are Neither Gods Nor Emperors: Students and theStruggle for Democracy in China (1994) and The Roots of Radicalism (2012).
He has also published extensively on nationalism and globalization;
secularism, religion, and the public sphere; economic and technologicalchange; critical social theory; and the history of social science.

120

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Wang Chenguang
Wang Chenguang holds a B.A. (1980), Masterof Law (1983), and Ph.D. in Law (1999) from
Peking University, as well as an LL.M. (1986)
from Harvard Law School. He has taught as
Teaching Assistant (1983), Lecturer (1985), andAssociate Professor (1991) at Peking University;
as University Senior Lecturer (1994) at City
University of Hong Kong; and as Associate
Professor (2000) and Professor (2000) at Tsinghua
University. He has served as Dean (2002–2008) at Tsinghua University
Law School, and he is currently Vice-Chair of the China Association of
Legal Theory, Deputy-Chair of the China Association of Legal Education,
Deputy-Chair of the China Association of Health Law, Executive ChiefEditor of the China Journal of Legal Science (English), and Legal Advisor
to the China Food and Drug Administration. His fields of teaching
and research are legal theory, comparative law, health law, legal clinic,
legislative and judicial systems.

Mohamed ElBaradei
Mohamed ElBaradei was Director General of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) andis currently Director General Emeritus. He wasborn in Egypt and holds degrees in Law from the
University of Cairo and the New York University
School of Law. He was an Egyptian diplomat
before joining the IAEA in 1984. In 2005, he was
jointly awarded with the IAEA the Nobel Peace
Prize. He has received numerous other awards
and Honoris Causae for his work as a public servant and advocate oftolerance, humanity, and freedom. He played a leading role in the ArabSpring of 2011.

Appendix B: Members of the Commission



121

Fonna Forman
Fonna Forman is a professor of Political Theory
and Founding Director of the Center on Global
Justice at the University of California, San Diego.
She is best known for her revisionist scholarshipon Adam Smith, recuperating the ethical, social,spatial, and public dimensions of his thought.
Her current work focuses on human rights at theurban scale, climate justice in cities, and equitableurban development in the Global South. She
presently serves as Vice-Chair of the University of California Climate
Solutions Group. She is a principal in Estudio Teddy Cruz + Forman, aresearch-based political and architectural practice based in San Diego/
Tijuana.

Andrew Forrest
Andrew Forrest is a leading philanthropist andbusinessman who joined the Giving Pledge
campaign, contributing wealth generated fromfounding two of Australia’s major resourcecompanies and employers.
Internationally, the five global initiatives of
Andrew’s Walk Free Foundation are helping tobring an end to modern slavery. The Foundation
facilitated the historical signing of a declarationby the major world faiths to reject slavery and publishes the Global
Slavery Index: achievements without precedent. At home, Andrew
works to end the disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous
Australians through GenerationOne’s education, training, andemployment efforts. His businesses have allocated $2bn to indigenous
contractors, and recently he chaired the Prime Minister and Cabinet’snational Indigenous Review, “Creating Parity.”

122

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Ronald M. George
Ronald M. George is a 1961 graduate of Princeton
University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs, and a 1964 graduate of
Stanford Law School. From 1965 to 1972, he served
as a Deputy Attorney General in the California
Department of Justice, where he represented theState of California in six oral arguments before theUnited States Supreme Court. He was appointed
to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by Governor
Reagan, to the Superior Court by Governor Brown, Jr., to the Court ofAppeal by Governor Deukmejian, to the California Supreme Court by
Governor Wilson as an Associate Justice, and, in 1996, as the 27th Chief
Justice of California (confirmed in 1998 by the voters for a 12-year term.)
As Chief Justice he chaired the Judicial Council of California and theCommission on Judicial Appointments. He was inducted as a Fellowof the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2009 and served as
President of the Conference of Chief Justices, Chair of the Board of
Directors of the National Center for State Courts, and as a member ofthe steering committee of the Sandra Day O’Connor Project on the Stateof the Judiciary.

Asma Jahangir
Twice Chairperson of the Human Rights
Commission of Pakistan, Asma Jahangir was
elected President of the Supreme Court Bar
Association of Pakistan in 2011. Asma is also a
Director of the AGHS Legal Aid Cell, which
provides free legal assistance to the needy andwas instrumental in the formation of the Punjab
Women Lawyers Association in 1980 and the
Women Action Forum in 1985.
In 1998, Asma was appointed United Nations Special Rapporteur
on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution as part of theCommission on Human Rights, and in 2004 she was appointed United
Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief for theCouncil of Human Rights.

Appendix B: Members of the Commission

123John Agyekum Kufuor
John Kufuor is the Former President of Ghana(2001–2009). He was called to the Bar, Lincoln’sInn, London (1959–1961); BA Honours (PPE) andMA Economics, Oxford (1964).
In December 2013, he was appointed UN
Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate
Change. In 2012, he founded the John A Kufuor
Foundation for Leadership, Governance, andDevelopment. In 2011, he was named jointwinner of the World Food Prize with former Brazilian President Lulada Silva. As Ghanaian president, he was Chairperson of the African
Union (2007–2008) and Chairman of the Economic Community of West
African States (2003–2005).
Other appointments held include Co-Chairman of the Global Panelon Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2013); Chairman of
the Governing Council, Interpeace (2010–2015); Global Envoy for the
Neglected Tropical Diseases Alliance (2011–2015); Chairman of theSanitation and Water for All Partnership (2011–2015); Deputy Ministerof Foreign Affairs (1969–1972); and Member of Parliament (1969–1972
and 1979–1981).

Graça MachelGraça Machel is a renowned international
advocate for women’s and children’s rights andhas been a social and political activist over many
decades. She is a former freedom fighter and was
the first Education Minister of Mozambique. Her
contributions to the Africa Progress Panel, theUnited Nations Secretary-General’s Millennium
Development Goals Advocacy Group and theHigh-Level Panel on Post 2015 Development
Agenda, have been widely appreciated. She is a member of The Elders,Girls Not Brides, Board Chair of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn& Child Health, African Ambassador for A Promised Renewed,
President of SOAS, University of London, Chancellor of the Universityof Cape Town, Board Chair of the African Centre for the Constructive

124

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Resolution of Disputes, President of the Foundation for Community
Development, and founder of the Zizile Institute for Child Development.
As Founder of the newly established Graça Machel Trust, she has
focused more recently on advocating for women’s economic andfinancial empowerment, education for all, an end to child marriage, foodsecurity and nutrition, and promoting democracy and good governance.

Catherine O’Regan
Kate O’Regan served as a judge of theConstitutional Court of South Africa from1994–2009 and has been serving as an ad
hoc judge of the Supreme Court of Namibia
since 2010. From 2008–2012, she served as theinaugural chairperson of the United Nations
Internal Justice Council, a body established toensure independence, professionalism, andaccountability in the internal system of justice inthe UN. She is Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law at the Universityof Oxford and also serves on the boards of many NGOs working in thefields of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and equality.

Ricken Patel
Ricken Patel is the founding President andExecutive Director of Avaaz.org, a global civic
movement for social change which has rapidly
grown since 2007 into the largest online activist
community in the world, with over 40 million
members in all 193 countries represented at theUnited Nations. Ricken was voted “Ultimate
Gamechanger in Politics” by the Huffington
Post and named a Young Global Leader by the
Davos World Economic Forum. He was also among Foreign Policy’s 100
Top Global Thinkers in 2012. He has lived and worked in Sierra Leone,
Liberia, Afghanistan, and Sudan, working on conflict resolution forvarious organizations including the International Crisis Group and theAppendix B: Members of the Commission125International Center for Transitional Justice. Ricken holds a Master’s
degree in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University, and a Bachelor’s in Philosophy, Politics andEconomics from Balliol College, Oxford University.

Emma Rothschild
Emma Rothschild is Director of the Joint Centerfor History and Economics, and Jeremy andJane Knowles Professor of History at Harvard
University. She is a Fellow of Magdalene College,
Cambridge. She was Chairman of the United
Nations Research Fund for Social Developmentfrom 1999–2005 and a member of the United
Nations Foundation Board from 1998–2015. She
has written extensively on economic history
and the history of economic thought. Her
publications include The Inner Life of Empires: An Eighteenth-Century
History (2011) and Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the
Enlightenment (2001).

Robert E. Rubin
Robert Rubin served as the 70th Secretary of
the U.S. Treasury from 1995 to 1999. He joined
the Clinton Administration in 1993 as the first
director of the National Economic Council.
Mr. Rubin began his career in finance atGoldman Sachs, rising to Vice-Chairman and
Co-Chief Operating Officer (1987–1990) and
Co-Senior Partner and Co-Chairman (1990–1992).
He was a member of the board at Citigroup
and a senior advisor to the company (1999–2009). In 2010, he joined
Centerview Partners as a senior counselor.
Mr. Rubin is Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations; ison the Board of the Mount Sinai Health System; and is Chairman of theBoard of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation.

126

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Jonathan Sacks
A global religious leader, philosopher, bestselling
author, and moral voice for our time, Rabbi Lord
Jonathan Sacks was recently named the winnerof the 2016 Templeton Prize. Rabbi Sacks iscurrently the Ingeborg and Ira Rennert Global
Distinguished Professor of Judaic Thought at
New York University and the Kressel and Ephrat
Family University Professor of Jewish Thought at
Yeshiva University. He is Emeritus Professor of
Law, Ethics and the Bible at King’s College London. Previously, Rabbi
Sacks served as Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of theCommonwealth between September 1991 and September 2013, only thesixth incumbent since the role was formalized in 1845.

Kailash Satyarthi
Mr Satyarthi has been a tireless advocate ofchildren’s rights for over three decades. He
and the grassroots movement founded by him,
Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood
Movement), have liberated more than 84,000
children from exploitation and developed
a successful model for their education andrehabilitation. Mr Satyarthi has been the architectof the single largest civil society network forthe most exploited children, the Global March Against Child Labour,
whose mobilization of unions, civil society and most importantly,
children, led to the adoption of ILO Convention 182 on the worst formsof child labour in 1999. He is also the founding president of the Global
Campaign for Education, an exemplar civil society movement working
to end the global education crisis, and GoodWeave International whichraises consumer awareness in the carpet industry. In 2014, he was jointly
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “struggle against the suppression ofchildren and young people and for the right of all children to education.”

Appendix B: Members of the Commission

127

Klaus Schwab
Klaus Schwab is the founder and Executive
Chairman of the World Economic Forum, theInternational Organization for Public-Private
Cooperation, based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Schwab studied at the Swiss Federal Instituteof Technology in Zurich, at the University of
Fribourg, and at Harvard University. His degrees
include doctorates in Mechanical Engineeringand Economics (summa cum laude). From 1972–
2003, he was Professor of Business Policy, University of Geneva. In
1998, Schwab co-founded, with his wife Hilde, the Schwab Foundationfor Social Entrepreneurship, supporting social innovation around theworld; in 2004, he founded the Forum of Young Global Leaders; andin 2011, he founded the Global Shapers Community. He has received
numerous honorary doctorates and honorary professorships, as well as
the highest international and national honors for initiatives undertakenin the spirit of entrepreneurship in the global public interest and forpeace and reconciliation.

Amartya Sen
Amartya Sen is Thomas W. Lamont University
Professor and Professor of Economics andPhilosophy at Harvard University. Until 2004 he
was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. He hasserved as President of the American Economic
Association, the Indian Economic Association,
the International Economic Association, andthe Econometric Society. His awards include
Bharat Ratna (India); Commandeur de la Légion
d’Honneur (France); the National Humanities Medal (USA); Honorary
Companion of Honour (UK); Ordem do Merito Cientifico (Brazil); theAztec Eagle (Mexico), and the Nobel Prize in Economics. Sen’s books,

128

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

on economics, philosophy, decision theory, and social inequalities havebeen translated into more than thirty languages.

John Sexton
John Sexton served as President of New York
University from 2002 through 2015. He is NYU’s
Benjamin Butler Professor of Law and Dean
Emeritus of the Law School. Milestones of histenure include the growth of NYU’s global
network, encompassing campuses in Abu
Dhabi and Shanghai; a merger with Polytechnic
University, now the NYU Tandon School ofEngineering; and the largest increase in the Arts
and Science Faculty in the University’s history.
A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, President
Emeritus Sexton also serves on the board of the Institute of International
Education and is past Chair of the American Council on Education.
Photo Credit ©NYU Photo Bureau: Gallo

Robert M. Shrum
Robert M. Shrum holds the Carmen H. andLouis Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics and isProfessor of the Practice of Political Science at the
University of Southern California. For decades,
he was a political strategist and consultant,serving as senior advisor to Kerry 2004 and Gore2000 campaigns. He was also senior advisor tothe campaign of Prime Minister Ehud Barak of
Israel and to the British Labour Party. Mr. Shrum
has written for New York Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, The New YorkTimes, and Newsweek, among other publications. His book, No Excuses:
Concessions of a Serial Campaigner (2007), was a national bestseller.

Appendix B: Members of the Commission

129

Jeremy Waldron
Jeremy Waldron is University Professor andProfessor of Law at New York University.
Professor Waldron was educated in New Zealandand at Oxford, and his career has included
appointments at Edinburgh, Berkeley, Columbia,
and Oxford. He is well-known for his workon constitutionalism, human dignity, historic
injustice, national security issues, and the ruleof law. His books include Law and Disagreement(1999) and Torture, Terror and Trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House(2010). His new book Political Theory is being published by Harvard
University Press in March 2016. Professor Waldron was elected to theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1998 and has been a Fellowof the British Academy since 2011.

Joseph Weiler
J.H.H. Weiler is President of the European
University Institute (EUI), and University
Professor at NYU Law School. Previously
he served as Manley Hudson Professor ofInternational Law at Harvard Law School andsubsequently as Director of the Jean Monnet
Center at NYU School of Law. He also served
for many years as Member of the Committeeof Jurists of the Institutional Affairs Committeeof the European Parliament. Prof. Weiler is Editor-in-Chief of theEuropean Journal of International Law (EJIL) and the International Journalof Constitutional Law (ICON). He is also an Honorary Professor at
University College London and the University of Copenhagen, and
Co-Director of the Academy of International Trade Law in Macao,
China. He holds a PhD in European Law from the EUI, Florence andhonorary degrees from various European and American universities.
He is the author of several books and articles in the field of European
integration, international and comparative constitutional law, andhuman rights law.

130

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century

Rowan Williams
Rowan Williams took up the mastership of
Magdalene College, Cambridge on January 1,
2013. He took his degrees at Christ’s College,
Cambridge and at Christ Church and WadhamCollege, Oxford. His career began as a lecturer
at Mirfield (1975–1977), and he later returned toCambridge as Tutor and Director of Studies at
Westcott House. After ordination in Ely Cathedral,and serving as Honorary Assistant Priest at St
George’s Chesterton, he was appointed to a University Lectureship in
Divinity. In 1984, he was elected a Fellow and Dean of Clare College.
Then, still only 36, it was back to Oxford as Lady Margaret Professor of
Divinity for six years, before becoming Bishop of Monmouth and, from2000, Archbishop of Wales. In 2002, Dr. Williams was confirmed as the104th Archbishop of Canterbury.

Diane C. Yu
Diane C. Yu is serving as Counselor to Leadershipand Executive Director of the Sheikh Mohamed
bin Zayed Community Programs at New York
University Abu Dhabi, one of the three New
York University campuses. From 2012-2015 she
was NYU’s Deputy President, a member of the
President’s cabinet, and presidential advisor
regarding dealings with NYU Trustees, deans,faculty, administrators, and students; prior tothat she served for 10 years as the Chief of Staff and Deputy to the
NYU President. Before coming to NYU, she was Managing Counsel at
a Fortune 250 company, General Counsel for the State Bar of California(for whom she won a case in the U.S. Supreme Court), White House
Fellow, and California Superior Court Commissioner. She has a B.A.
from Oberlin College and a J.D. from U.C. Berkeley.

Appendix C:
Members of thePhilosophers’ Committee

Philip Alston New York University Law School
Anthony Appiah New York University Law School and Departmentof Philosophy
Charles Beitz Princeton University, Department of Politics
Seyla Benhabib Yale University, Departments of Political Scienceand Philosophy
Simon Caney Oxford University, Department of Politics andInternational Relations
Fonna Forman University of California, San Diego, Departmentof Political Science
Avishai Margalit Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of
Philosophy
Pratap Mehta Center for Policy Research, New Delhi
Samuel Moyn Harvard University Law School and Departmentof History
Onora O’Neill Cambridge University, Department of Philosophy
Michael Rosen Harvard University, Department of Government
Michael Sandel Harvard University, Department of Government
Amartya Sen Harvard University, Department of Economics
John Tasioulas King’s College London Law School
Jeremy Waldron New York University Law School
Wang Chenguang Tsinghua University Law School
Joseph Weiler European University InstituteThis book need not end here...
At Open Book Publishers, we are changing the nature of the traditional
academic book. The title you have just read will not be left on a library shelf,
but will be accessed online by hundreds of readers each month across theglobe. OBP publishes only the best academic work: each title passes througha rigorous peer-review process. We make all our books free to read online
so that students, researchers and members of the public who can’t afford a
printed edition will have access to the same ideas.
This book and additional content is available at:
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783742189

Customize
Personalize your copy of this book or design new books using OBP and thirdparty material. Take chapters or whole books from our published list andmake a special edition, a new anthology or an illuminating coursepack. Eachcustomized edition will be produced as a paperback and a downloadable PDF.
Find out more at:
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/59/1

DonateIf you enjoyed this book, and feel that research like this should be available
to all readers, regardless of their income, please think about donating to us.
We do not operate for profit and all donations, as with all other revenue wegenerate, will be used to finance new Open Access publications.
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/13/1/support-us

Like Open Book Publishers
Follow @OpenBookPublish
Read more at the Open Book Publishers

You may also be interested in:
Democracy and PowerThe Delhi Lectures

Noam Chomsky. Introduction by Jean Drèze

https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/300

Peace and Democratic Society

Edited by Amartya Sen

http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/78

Tolerance
The Beacon of the Enlightenment

Translated by Caroline Warman, et al.

http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/418

The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in the 21st Century
A Living Document in a Changing World
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights ofall members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in theworld . . .
—The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The Global Citizenship Commission was convened, under the leadership of former British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the auspices of NYU’s Global Institute for Advanced Study,
to re-examine the spirit and stirring words of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The result – this volume – oﬀers a 21st-century commentary on the original document,
furthering the work of human rights and illuminating the ideal of global citizenship. What
does it mean for each of us to be members of a global community?
Since 1948, the Declaration has stood as a beacon and a standard for a better world. Yet
the work of making its ideals real is far from over. Hideous and systemic human rights
abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate around the world. Too many people,
particularly those in power, are hostile to human rights or indiﬀerent to their claims.
Meanwhile, our global interdependence deepens.
Bringing together world leaders and thinkers in the ﬁelds of philosophy, law, ethics, politics,
and philanthropy, the Commission set out to develop a common understanding of themeaning of global citizenship – one that arises from basic human rights and empowers
every individual in the world. This landmark report aﬃrms the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and seeks to renew the 1948 enterprise, and the very ideal of the humanfamily, for our day and generation.
K. Anthony Appiah
Laurel Bellows
Nicolas Berggruen
Paul Boghossian
Gordon Brown (Chair)
Craig Calhoun
Wang Chenguang

Mohamed ElBaradei
Fonna Forman
Andrew Forrest
Ronald M. George
Asma Jahangir
John Kufuor
Graça Machel

Catherine O’Regan
Ricken Patel
Emma Rothschild
Robert Rubin
Jonathan Sacks
Kailash Satyarthi
Klaus Schwab

Amartya Sen
John Sexton
Robert Shrum
Jeremy Waldron
Joseph Weiler
Rowan Williams
Diane C. Yu (Executive Director)

As with all Open Book publications, this entire book is available to read for free on the
publisher’s website. Printed and digital editions, together with supplementary digitalmaterial, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com

ebook

ebook and OA editions
also available