Авторські блоги та коментарі до них відображають виключно точку зору їхніх авторів. Редакція ЛІГА.net може не поділяти думку авторів блогів.
It should be understood that in 1948, when the Declaration was written, the list of universal values was slightly different, as well as the geopolitical map, the UN General Assembly consisted of 58 countries divided into two blocs. At that time we recognized only two generations of human rights (today we have at least three generally recognized), and the Declaration was based on the idea of 'social contract' and the influence of French Declaration of 1789.
The Declaration itself was written rather as one of the preventive mechanisms to protect humanity from the crimes of the Second World War than as a tool for human rights. Tools appeared only after 18 years of debate with the adoption of two pacts 'On Civil and Political Rights' 'and' 'On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'. (Although the first isn`t ratified by China, and the second - by USA).
Perhaps the most significant effect of the Declaration is that after 1948 the presence in national constitutions of section ''rights and freedoms'' became imperative.
Modern criticism has two directions. First, the Declaration lacks legal mechanisms for its implementation. By itself, the text is neither effective nor applicable. This was due to the fact that the content of the declaration is a compromise between the socialist and capitalist camps, considering the positions of Confucian China and Muslim countries.
'Soviet bloc' threatened to block the decision and insisted on writing the Declaration in two parts: Political rights and Social, economic rights, and certainly such a declaration would look like a set of two Covenants of 1966. Compromise gave rise to quite short text that required the adoption of new regulations layered later.
Declaration today is a document that contains the right of the first two generations, while we are talking about at least three or even four. But today its content should be much more deeper. The world community is in power to reach a common denominator in terms of physical integrity of women and girls, provide new scales of environmental law, principles which are generally defined only in the Declaration of Rio de Janeiro. We must understand that the world is different and we have different approaches on human rights. Human rights are relative. For western world freedom of religion means that one can adopt and change religion but for Muslims it means only adopt ones, for Europeans democracy and elections are something usual but there are nations who live successfully without these. We must understand that human rights are not universal but relative. So, maybe we shall draft Relative Declaration of Human Rights?
03.03.2015 12:41
Shall we rewrite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
In the aftermath of the Second World War, humanity united around a common goal — to share humanism and urge the states on endorse a declaration of human rights which will be accepted by all nations. Since then, the issue of human rights continues to evolve
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a text which actually has no legal weight, but is declarative. Even the title is ''universal declaration'', declaration of certain universal values.It should be understood that in 1948, when the Declaration was written, the list of universal values was slightly different, as well as the geopolitical map, the UN General Assembly consisted of 58 countries divided into two blocs. At that time we recognized only two generations of human rights (today we have at least three generally recognized), and the Declaration was based on the idea of 'social contract' and the influence of French Declaration of 1789.
The Declaration itself was written rather as one of the preventive mechanisms to protect humanity from the crimes of the Second World War than as a tool for human rights. Tools appeared only after 18 years of debate with the adoption of two pacts 'On Civil and Political Rights' 'and' 'On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'. (Although the first isn`t ratified by China, and the second - by USA).
Perhaps the most significant effect of the Declaration is that after 1948 the presence in national constitutions of section ''rights and freedoms'' became imperative.
Modern criticism has two directions. First, the Declaration lacks legal mechanisms for its implementation. By itself, the text is neither effective nor applicable. This was due to the fact that the content of the declaration is a compromise between the socialist and capitalist camps, considering the positions of Confucian China and Muslim countries.
'Soviet bloc' threatened to block the decision and insisted on writing the Declaration in two parts: Political rights and Social, economic rights, and certainly such a declaration would look like a set of two Covenants of 1966. Compromise gave rise to quite short text that required the adoption of new regulations layered later.
Declaration today is a document that contains the right of the first two generations, while we are talking about at least three or even four. But today its content should be much more deeper. The world community is in power to reach a common denominator in terms of physical integrity of women and girls, provide new scales of environmental law, principles which are generally defined only in the Declaration of Rio de Janeiro. We must understand that the world is different and we have different approaches on human rights. Human rights are relative. For western world freedom of religion means that one can adopt and change religion but for Muslims it means only adopt ones, for Europeans democracy and elections are something usual but there are nations who live successfully without these. We must understand that human rights are not universal but relative. So, maybe we shall draft Relative Declaration of Human Rights?
Якщо Ви помітили орфографічну помилку, виділіть її мишею і натисніть Ctrl+Enter.
Останні записи
- От трансфера технологий к инновационному инжинирингу Вільям Задорський вчора о 21:33
- Начинается фаза глобального разгона инфляции и масштабных валютных войн Володимир Стус вчора о 18:53
- Омріяна Перемога: яким українці бачать закінчення війни? Дмитро Пульмановський вчора о 18:12
- Баланс між обставинами злочину та розміром застави Богдан Глядик вчора о 17:09
- Люди в центрі змін: як Франковий університет створює сучасне академічне середовище Віталій Кухарський вчора о 16:32
- Інноваційні виклики та турбулентність операційної моделі "Укрзалізниці" в агрологістиці Юрій Щуклін вчора о 14:16
- Тіньова пластична хірургія в Україні: чому це небезпечно і як врегулювати ринок Дмитро Березовський вчора о 11:30
- Модель нової індустріалізації України Денис Корольов 17.04.2025 20:15
- Історія з "хеппі ендом" або як вдалося зберегти ветеранський бізнес на київському вокзалі Галина Янченко 17.04.2025 16:18
- Ілюзія захисту: чим загрожують несертифіковані мотошоломи Оксана Левицька 17.04.2025 15:23
- Як комплаєнс допомагає громадським організаціям зміцнити довіру та уникнути ризиків Акім Кібновський 17.04.2025 15:17
- Топ криптофрендлі юрисдикцій: де найкраще розвивати криптобізнес? Дарина Халатьян 17.04.2025 14:18
- Червоні прапорці контрагентів у бізнесі Сергій Пагер 17.04.2025 08:44
- Ринок праці України: виклики та тренди 2025 року Ілля Літун 16.04.2025 19:23
- Терези Феміди: статистика виправдувальних вироків в Україні – симптом чи вирок системі? Олександр Крайз 16.04.2025 17:10
Топ за тиждень
Популярне
-
Оприлюднено текст меморандуму щодо угоди про копалини
Фінанси 13300
-
Потужність Rheinmetall в Україні значно перевищить заплановані 150 000 снарядів на рік
Бізнес 11894
-
FT: Raiffeisen призупинив продаж російської "дочки" через зближення США та РФ
Фінанси 5141
-
"Червоні двері, жовті двері": небезпечна гра серед підлітків чи черговий тренд із TikTok
Життя 4347
-
Сто днів на відповідь: став остаточно зрозумілим дедлайн Трампа для Путіна
Думка 4023
Контакти
E-mail: [email protected]