Reflections on Fifty Years of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Prof. Kurt Mills

English Public Lecture Series
The American University in Cairo
December 14, 1998

Four days ago the world marked the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This seminal document was a conceptual sea-change in global politics. Its scope was breathtaking. The international community had agreed that citizens of all countries should be guaranteed a wide variety of rights. No longer could states engage in the genocide of Nazi Germany. No longer could they torture their citizens, or deny them a wide range of social, political, and economic rights. No longer, in other words, were individuals subject to the sovereign whims of the state in which they resided. These rights were further codified in the ensuing decades in conventions, and covenants, and declarations, but the Universal Declaration formed the core of a modern theory of human rights.

Theory, of course, gave way to reality as a Cold War grew out of the ashes of a World War, and as states continued their old ways of doing business. Millions of people have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed in the latter half of the 20th Century. Genocides have occurred, and the international community has sat by passively, sometimes expressing outrage, and sometimes not even doing that.

Yet the idea of human rights has gained increasing normative salience worldwide. And, in practice, the international community has taken a few tentative steps to recognize the reorientation of rights and responsibilities embodied in the Universal Declaration. But there is still much to be done to ensure that all people, both as individuals and in groups, and regardless of religion or gender or nationality or ethnicity or the many other ways we identify ourselves and discriminate against each other, are able to enjoy the right to live with dignity and security.

I would like to take this opportunity to give a very brief assessment of progress over the last five decades in the field of human rights and point to some of the areas where much more work needs to be done. I will not recite all of the conventions and declarations on human rights which have appeared in the last fifty years. Their sheer number demonstrates the extent to which human rights is a legitimate subject for debate and inquiry at the international level. Their coverage is impressive and vast, and in fact so vast that one might conclude that what we need now is not another treaty or declaration; rather, what is needed is actual implementation of these agreements. And, yet, there is still resistance to the universal and binding nature of human rights norms, so let me begin with the issue of universality.

There have been assaults on the very idea of human rights, claiming it is a Western invention and thus not universal in validity. I have four responses to this. First, this line of reasoning is actually an insult to those who claim this, for it assumes that all of the cultures and religions and belief systems in the so-called “non-Western” world have no tradition of respect for the diginity and integrity of the human person. This is demonstrably false and demeans the people who make up the majority of the world’s population. Second, take a look at those who are making this claim. It is generally those who wish to violate the rights of people and subordinate them to the state or an ideology. It is dictators, thugs, extremists of all kinds, and generally those whose interest it is to be able to control others. Further it is these same people who rely on another “Western” invention, that of state sovereignty, to hold themselves immune from outside criticism. The contradiction is vast and glaring.

Third, if it is, indeed, true, which, as I have argued, I do not believe to be the case, so what? To listen to this line of reasoning, one would think that nothing of import or significance has ever come out of the so-called “West”. It seems to argue that the rest of the world should shut itself off from the ideas and traditions of a large portion of humanity. This, in fact, does a disservice to the West. Further, it does not correspond to reality. There is, in fact, vast interchange between cultures, and this can be seen as part of that process. For example, we would not be here at the American University in Cairo, which represents, I think, the best of the Western liberal tradition, if a conversation among Western and non-Western traditions were not seen to be beneficial.

Fourth, the states of the world have, repeatedly, agreed to the universal nature of human rights and that human rights is a legitimate topic of international concern. This occurred most recently in 1993 when the 171 states at the World Conference on Human Rights reaffirmed, in the Vienna Declaration, the universality of human rights and recognized that “the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community.” What could be clearer? And these 171 states included many who argued, and continue to argue, against universalist interpretations. It seems to me that the fact that these thugs—and let’s be clear about the nature of some of the leaders and governments around the world—feel compelled to give such extensive lip service to human rights means that the idea of human rights has acquired vast, indeed universal, normative salience.

The normative force of human rights, however, unfortunately says little about ensuring the full range of rights required for human dignity. Although there have been some important developments in the last five decades, implementation has fallen significantly short. The abominable response on the part of the international community to the genocide in Rwanda demonstrates how far we have to go. The fact that the international community could watch the slaughter of up to 1 million people unfold right in front of its eyes without lifting a finger should make all countries, and in particular those who are the most vocal in support of human rights and could have done something about it, feel deeply ashamed. The cry after the Nazi Holocaust was “Never again!” Unfortunately, these words ring hollow as we witness the Rwandas and the Bosnias and the Sudans, and the almost infinite array of violations of human rights abuses carried out 1 or 100,000 at a time. The hypocrisy is vast and falls on far too many shoulders to list here.

Yet, one can point to a few hopeful signs, however fleeting they may seem now. Probably two of the most dramatic and significant are the fall of the Berlin Wall and all of the associated consequences, and the end of Apartheid in South Africa and the introduction of a regime which, unlike so many others, is not intent on inflicting revenge, but, instead, wants to move toward the attainment of widespread social justice. In Haiti, democracy, however fleeting it existence before, was restored at the behest of the international community. Many Latin American countries, which have traditionally been jealous of their sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention, supported the action. In the African context, Salim A. Salim, the Secretary General of the Organization of African Unity, has argued vociferously that African states, who, again, have upheld the principle of non-intervention as inviolate, cannot claim that their conduct is not the business of their neighbors. One might argue, rightly, that there were many state interests that went into the Haitian case. The typical conclusion would be that the this was nothing more than cynical realpolitik. However, it might also be an indication that human rights may have an ally in state interest. That is, until the world is populated by human rights respecting governments or governed by a powerful supranational organization able to fully ensure people’s rights, a prospect which is not likely in the foreseeable future, states will still be important in facilitating the implementation of human rights internationally—although hopefully mediated through appropriate and legitimate international bodies—and thus signs that states see it within their interest to take action on behalf of human rights should be welcomed. The issue, rather, is ensuring that such action is implemented multilaterally and in a coherent manner. Basing policy on the so-called “CNN Effect” is not conducive to the full protection of human rights around the world.

The UN has been the focus of much human rights activity and been the central actor in the evolution and implementation of human rights norms. The recent creation of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is further indication of its deep and continuing involvement. Yet, the High Commissioner is hobbled in her work by a lack of resources. The member states of the UN have chosen to create such an important body while not giving it anywhere near the resources necessary to adequately do its job. This points to the wider fact that the world spends thousands of times more on its militaries than on supporting human rights, even though ensuring that human rights are protected worldwide would do far more to enhance human security than buying the newest weapons system.

One can point to other recent developments which, while not panaceas, still illustrate advances which have been made in protecting human rights. The recent extension of the European Court of Human Rights is a significant development expanding the ability of individuals to hold states accountable. The creation of the war crimes tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda sends the signal that one cannot engage in genocide and other massive human rights abuses without being held accountable. The new International Criminal Court will address some of the same issues. Finally, the events surrounding thr arrest of former Chilean president Pinochet represent a significant blow to impunity. It says that even the highest ranking official in a country can be held accountable for acts of torture and murder and repression. Such leaders cannot, in other words, escape the scrutiny and wrath of the international community.

Let me point briefly to six other important human rights issues facing the world today. First, we must affirm the indivisibility of human rights. Many states, for their own political and ideological reasons, would like to argue that economic rights are more important than civil rights, or that the right to vote is more important than the right to food. These arguments are patently absurd and go against the universal and unitary nature of human rights. We must combat such arguments at every turn for they are, inevitably, strategies to legitimate the denial of many rights.

Second, although much human rights legislation and machinery is targeted specifically at governments, we must remember that many human rights abuses are committed by non-state entities, such as rebel groups and terrorist organizations. While we may support some of the goals of these organizations, we cannot, at the same time, abide activities carried out by them for which we would condemn states. We should make it clear that human rights abuses on the part of a noble cause are nonetheless human rights abuses and may, in fact, undermine the normative force of a noble cause. Human rights abuses can also occur as a result of societal pressure rather than state action. A salient example is that of female circumcision. In Egypt, for example, the government is trying to combat this practice, while it is societal practice which perpetuates it. Dealing with such a situation requires much different responses than if it were state supported or state mandated. Likewise, dealing with a transnational corporation which operates sweatshops far from its home country calls for a much different strategy.

A third issue is that of self-determination. I would argue that self-determination not only is a human right in and of itself, but is also necessary for the enjoyment of other human rights. However, the focus of discussion with regard to self-determination is almost always on the creation of a new state for an oppressed people. Yet, we need to be more creative in our thinking about how to implement this right because it is simply not possible to give an independent state to every single group that might want it. Further, the creation of states ad infinitum will only exacerbate the problem by creating more and more states which are intolerant of their own minorities who are somehow “different” from those for who self-determination was supposedly gained. Self-determination, in other words, cannot be an exclusive project.

Fourth, the refugee regime is under great threat. The rights of refugees are guaranteed under a variety of legal instruments. But these people, who are among the most powerless in the world, have their rights violated every day by states ranging from the most powerful to the least. The international community needs to renew its commitment to the world’s most vulnerable and establish a system where the rights of refugees are implemented in an even and coherent manner and where the burden of helping refugees is shared proportionately by all.

Fifth, there is, it seems, still one group of people against which it appears almost universally acceptable to discriminate. Indeed, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are singled out in almost every country worldwide for particular scorn, violence, and repression, frequently with the active support of the government. Regardless of what one may personally think about a group of people—any group of people—the members of that group are still entitled to their full human rights and deserve not to be discriminated against for who they are, regardless of whether this discrimination is based on religious, social, or political grounds.

Finally, the real and concrete international protection of human rights is incompatible with traditional conceptions of sovereignty. The vision of sovereignty which says that the state is impervious to outside reproach is anathema to a universal regime of human rights protection. The existence of absolute state sovereignty is of dubious historical fact; today it is pure fiction. States are enmeshed in such a web of interactions and organizations that they cannot claim absolute freedom of action. They are dependent upon each other for their economic well-being and their security. They cannot control the value of their currencies. States cannot individually prevent environmental disasters like global warming or the reduction of the ozone layer from affecting them. And, no matter how much the censors would like, they cannot prevent ideas from crossing their borders, including ideas having to do with the protection of human dignity. With these ideas come the realization that if we are serious about protecting human rights, we then have to say that the world has come to the point where it will not recognize a government as legitimate if it does not uphold the human rights of its subjects, those whose interests it should be representing in the first place. In other words, our concept of sovereignty should include the idea of human rights rather than being in opposition to it.

The Universal Declaration was the beginning of a vast, yet vital, undertaking. The world has witnessed many successes in the field of human rights in the last fifty years, but it has also witnessed unimaginable horror at both the level of Rwanda and in the torture chambers of Pinochet’s Chile. There is much to do, and much of it is up to us.