Universal Declaration of Human Rights and U.S. Bill of Rights

Universal Declaration and Bill of Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter and U.S. Bill of Rights: A Discussion

Throughout our history, leaders have published documents that delineate acceptable behavior for the people they govern. These writs include the original Bill of Rights, which stands as the basis for our democratic government, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Charter. These documents form the basis from which law officials draw upon knowledge in order to prosecute or condone acceptable behavior. It is imperative to understand how they work together, and the significance of each in our times.

The original ten articles of the Bill of Rights were passed and ratified in the late 1700's. They identified the basic freedoms and inalienable rights belonging to each individual. The amendments that followed developed as needs of the times proved that they were necessary, and limits to the original identified rights needed to be clarified (www.ushistory.org). The Bill of Rights is the fundamental document that serves as the basis for our country's laws.

The UN Charter was drafted in 1945 after the formation of the United Nations as a world-peace upholding organization. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fairly recent document in comparison to the original Bill of Rights. In 1948, following World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for its functioning. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories (www.un.org)." It was a document meant for the entire world, hence its universality, not just the citizens of the United States. For this reason, perhaps, it has become commonly used and referred to in contemporary court cases, and is often seen a guide pointing the direction to the final word in disputing a case, especially one of international significance.

In most documents that were written many years ago, the wording often needs to be clarified and adapted to contemporary cases as do the limits of those concepts stated. The fundamental purpose of the Universal Declaration was to clarify what is meant by the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" that appear in the UN Charter as the language was vague and up for debate. Because it provided this clarification in the form of principles outlined, the Universal Declaration has become a fundamental document of the United Nations and all member states are bound to abide by its details. It has likely been accepted as the final word and goes beyond the Bill of Rights in most cases as it is, in essence, universally accepted, whereas the Bill of Rights is not. Furthermore, it delineates what is meant by human rights including those that affect governments on a larger scale.

The UN Charter, the foundational treaty of the United Nations, identifies the purpose of the United Nations and its binding principles. It depicts the responsibility of Member nations to uphold human rights as well as international peace and security. In Article II, point 4, it states that the UN should not intervene in individual state agendas or governments, which may seem to be contradicted by the upholding of all individual human rights delineated in the Universal Declaration. Furthermore, point 5 states that the UN shall refrain from giving assistance to any state "against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action" (www.un.org.) This too may at times conflict with individual rights of members of that state which the Universal Declaration claims to protect. It appears that the overall goal of the UN Charter, aside for maintaining human rights, is to uphold world peace and security. Therefore, at times the agenda of peace and security may have to trump individual rights in the states that are involved in the conflict.