The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Essay

In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved. by the United National General Assembly. Since then the idea of human rights has become a ubiquitous part of the world order, and is used to justify sanctions and wars against offending countries (Goodhart, 2016: 2-3). With something so pervasive across international relations it is important to interrogate it and come to an understanding of what exactly human rights are, and how it works. This essay will examine human rights by looking at how it is implemented by the United Nations, and what obstacles it has faced. This essay will be organized in the following way: First, it will give a brief history of human rights as a UN doctrine and philosphy in order to situate the essay. Second it will look at the tools the UN has to enforce Human Rights, specifically looking at so-called “naming and shaming”, sanctions, and military actions and the obstacles these tools have to being effective. Finally, using this information it will draw a conclusion about the state of Human Rights as a whole.

Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.

Human rights are protected under Australian law in three key ways; statute law, the constitution and common law. It could be argued that if Australia adopted a bill of rights, human rights would be more clearly defined, consistent in all states and territories and more easily understood.

The situation in France prior to the revolution cried out for redress of the wrongs and inequalities inflicted on the working class. While the king, the nobility and the church enjoyed great privilege, the peasants struggled to survive. Only the poor paid taxes. Hunger and poverty was rampant. The National Assembly, which formed in response to the failure of the monarchy to do anything about the dire situation, enacted some changes. All of this was put forward in A Declaration of Man and Rights of Citizens which was proclaimed by the National Assembly and was applied to all citizens. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen came to be, as was recognized by the 19th-century historian, Jules Michelet, “the credo of the new age”. The rights to "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression"

All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms, but where was this saying when the Holocaust was going on? The Holocaust was the biggest, most brutal, and baddest mass killing of a single race. The people on the side of the Holocaust did not listen to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or anything to persuade them to stop killing Jews. All humans deserve the rights given to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the core of society are the undeniable rights we are afforded as human beings. These rights are outlined in the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a way to protect each individual’s freedoms. Since its adoption sixty-seven years ago, society and its viewpoints have changed drastically (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). Therefore, while at the time the intentions for this document might have been genuine to protect all people, they are no longer sufficient. The lack of inclusion in this document has led to the creation of documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The concept that morals are not inherent or universal but are developed by the necessities of a given society at any certain time, as presented in William Graham Sumner’s Folkways, is inadequate and displeasing. While some moral practices are relative to particular cultures, that does not mean that there are no rights that belong to everyone, nor does it mean that just because an activity is practiced that it is morally justifiable. Each human being is entitled to a certain set of liberties, which are outlined in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” All individuals are supposed to have equal access to these rights, but according to Sumner, all rights are cultural and none are universal.

The three primary dissenters to the human rights tradition as put forth by the likes of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant all based their criticisms of the tradition in some way on questioning the foundations of the claims for human rights. All of the three – Edmund Burke, Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx – land on a conclusion that the human rights tradition has too heavy a dependence upon individuals, whether through an overdependence on their ability to reason in the case of Burke or through an overdependence on protecting and benefitting individuals in the cases of Bentham and Marx.

In accordance with article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1948, American citizens are entitled to, "the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services..." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This declaration also goes on to give a special mention to mothers and children, and their need for additional assistance. With this in mind, states commonly have many health policies to protect these human rights described in the above declaration. However, some states go against this declaration by restricting access to certain health services, namely abortion, on the basis of moral, political, or religious objection. In the following pages the topic of reproductive rights will be broached, and the associated cases that are centered on both sides of the issue will be discussed.

The mistreatment of women in the Middle East desecrates the human rights Americans claim all should have. In the second article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” 203 countries around the world recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are apart of the United Nations organization itself, if 203 countries agree to govern and provide the rights the Declaration states, then why must women in certain regions receive permission

In 2013, the parents of an Amish girl with leukemia decided to refuse further chemotherapy for her and rely on “natural remedies” instead. The state of Ohio responded by taking the family to court to attempt to force the girl into chemotherapy, which they argued was necessary to save her life. The court ruled in favor of the government, and in response the family fled the country, arguing that the treatment violated their cultural and religious norms, and there was no assurance that it would be effective. This case brings up several complicated issues of human rights that implicate principles from the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, Convention on the Rights of a Child, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The situation of the Ohio Amish family spotlights a potential for conflict between the principles of protecting religious and cultural minorities, allowing for freedom of belief and autonomy over one’s own body, and the rights of a child to both her own religion and culture and to access the same standard of healthcare available to others in her country. In this particular situation, resolving the conflict is a matter of life and death: is it more important to be surrounded by one’s own culture and religion, or to have potentially life saving health care treatment? While I

that everyone is equal and should be treated the same. Not one person is better than another, and

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

In the minds of many people human rights are defined as a set of governmental Do’s and Don’ts that protect people from their governments in terms of the freedom of speech, assembly, etc. without infringement. Of course, most people would agree that these are fundamental rights and deserve to be upheld, however many feel that there are a set of universal human rights that can be used to secure the freedom of all people around the world. One such document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written by the United Nations, claims to be the “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”. While I agree with most of the points made in the declaration, I simply do not believe that the human race is homogenous enough for a

     The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims that the rights discussed in the document are "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." This document, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), are meant to be global agreements that span all cultures and traditions. These documents however do not live up to their intent. In fact, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights prove this unrealized and unrealistic expectation of the earlier ‘universal’ and ‘international’