In short, the IBHR implies that governments all across the world should promote secularism in order to keep peace and understanding when negotiations take place between countries (Cliteur, 2010). However, nowhere does the IBHR insist that country's governments have to be secular in nature. That would intrude too strongly on the countries and whether they are allowed to govern themselves. While the IBHR is important, it is not a document designed to tell each country how it has to govern its people. Instead, the IBHR is about the rights of the people in those countries and how the governments work with one another when issues are handled that go across cultures and across borders (Cliteur, 2010). Henkin understood this, and worked tirelessly throughout the majority of his lifetime for human rights. Foreign policy and international law were the two biggest areas he focused on, because he saw how a lack of human rights laws was affecting countries and the people in them (Grimes, 2010).

Without a clear understanding...

As society changed, international laws also changed. These laws became more targeted toward the rights of all humans, instead of just the rights of some humans - such as black vs. white, men vs. women, etc. The IBHR was written to include everyone, and that meant that people could not have their rights taken from them because of a particular religion they practiced. It also meant that it would be harder for governments to impose a "national religion" for the people of a country at the exclusion of other religions. While many countries do have a religion that most of their people practice, other religions are accepted and the government works to avoid targeting a person of one religion over another.
References

Cliteur, P. (2010). The Secular Outlook: In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism. NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Grimes, W. (2010). Louis Henkin, 92, Leader in Field of…