Last week for the Human Rights Fair we were asked to reflect upon the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the paper I wrote for class.
The document is extremely relevant to every day life. It is supposed to protect the essential rights of all human beings. The amendments are clearly defined, and useful for the protection of humanity.
One of the things I thought was really interesting was that the preamble and other parts of the document stressed the importance of teaching children the document. The fact that it stressed the education of future generations, I found is extremely important. Lots of the amendments were interesting but the one that stuck out the most to me was the first clause of article 15; Everyone has the right to a nationality. Another amendment that stood out to me was article 18; Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
I noticed it was similar to the amendments to U.S. constitution.
This document as universal jurisdiction is amazing. Human Rights are fundamentally the most important thing, in my opinion. I believe protecting people’s human rights are much more important than the protection of a nation. States come and go but humans have been here forever.
I casually avoided the fact that the UN can only suggest things and has no true power. I definitely think that it is under taken advantage of though.
The link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as follows:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Let me know what you think...
I like what you pointed out about the amendment on the right to a nationality. I wonder how much of an issue it was so that an amendment must have been made. Did people really go about without a nationality? Crazy.
"Do people still go without a nationality", and the answer is a resounding yes. Interestingly enough, refugees the world over do so on a daily basis. The other interesting thing is that refugees who have committed (or are thought to have committed) violations of perentary norms under international law don't really have much in the way of legal rights. Now, I know that it sounds silly -- why give slave traders and perpetrators of genocide rights at all? -- but the angle that needs to be considered is that without those basic rights, coercing their testimony becomes much easier, which makes the tribunals they participate in subject to charges of 'victors justice'.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
Is that it is a feel good document that none of the nations who voted for it really support. The sentiments are nice, but no one will enforce them.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre