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
- Облігації у 2025: золота можливість чи пастка? Петро Цибуля 13:23
- Drill, БЕБ, drill Євген Магда 11:43
- Парламент підтримав "знижку мінус 50%" за порушення правил військового обліку Анна Даніель вчора о 18:24
- Трагедія в Одесі в контексті Рішення ЄС: Де межа відповідальності держави? Дмитро Зенкін вчора о 14:21
- Російське бачення "припиненння війни" Георгій Тука вчора о 09:24
- Які поважні причини неприбуття до ТЦК та СП по повістці? Що треба знати? Віталій Соловей вчора о 01:26
- Ринок автобусів в Україні у 2024 році та прогнози на 2025 рік Микита Гайдамаха 12.03.2025 22:33
- Ограниченно пригодные: кто должен пройти ВВК до 5 июня? Віра Тарасенко 12.03.2025 22:20
- Санкції з металом в голосі Євген Магда 12.03.2025 17:18
- Україна має підтримати прагнення Туреччини вступити в ЄС Любов Шпак 12.03.2025 15:48
- Зелене майбутнє України очима молоді у 2025 році Оксана Захарченко 12.03.2025 14:47
- Стосунки з собою Людмила Євсєєнко 12.03.2025 10:00
- Від США до фронту: контракти, що змінять правила гри Віктор Плахута 11.03.2025 19:56
- Смертна кара у часи війни: вибір між гуманізмом і виживанням Дмитро Зенкін 10.03.2025 23:08
- Про оскарження рішень військово-лікарських комісій (ВЛК) Світлана Приймак 10.03.2025 23:00
Топ за тиждень
Популярне
-
Боровся зі зросійщенням, конфліктував із Трухановим: що відомо про Дем'яна Ганула
4031
-
Трамп, Disney, Леді Гага: передбачення "Сімпсонів" — випадкові жарти чи сценарій нашого майбутнього
Життя 3120
-
Чому Путін одягнув військову форму, щойно мова зайшла про мир
Думка 2568
-
Трамп звинуватив Ірландію у крадіжці фармацевтичної промисловості
Бізнес 2431
-
Три червоні лінії, яких має триматися Україна на будь-яких міжнародних переговорах
Думка 2090
Контакти
E-mail: [email protected]