The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Have you done any research in this area?  If so, please share it.]

Robert Traer*

François Refoulé writes that Pope Paul VI wanted to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "the corner-stone of all his work."¹ For Paul VI, the Universal Declaration was "the path that must not be abandoned if mankind today sincerely wants to consolidate peace"; and he never lost an opportunity to express his "complete moral support for the common ideal contained in the Universal Declaration."²

In this chapter I will show that religious leaders have not only accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the cornerstone of the human rights movement, but were active in cutting and laying the stone in place. First, I will review the history of involvement by religious leaders in the development of the Universal Declaration. Then I will survey support in religious literature for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Laying the Cornerstone

Philip Potter writes that the Protestant effort on behalf of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights began as early as 1943, when the Federal Council of Churches and the Foreign Missions Conference (which later merged to become the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.) established a Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, with O. Frederick Nolde as its executive secretary.³ The following year a statement on religious liberty was sent to the president of the United States and his secretary of state, all members of Congress, fifty-three heads of diplomatic missions, and the leaders of thirty-five churches abroad.

In 1945 three memoranda prepared by the Joint Committee on Religious Liberty were among those considered by the Conference on International Organization at San Francisco. The first related religious liberty to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, which Nolde describes as a "corner-stone" for human rights.⁴ The second emphasized the relationship between religious liberty and civil rights. The third urged that

if the Dumbarton Oaks proposal to create an economic and social council under the general assembly admits of prompt realization . . . our government take immediate steps to the end that this council give consideration to human rights and fundamental freedoms; and further, in order to permit such forthright action as world conditions demand and as agreement among the nations will permit, that a specialized agency under this council . . . be established with responsibility in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms.⁵

Additional support for this proposal came from the International Round Table at Princeton in July 1943, involving sixty-one Christian leaders from twelve countries in North America, Europe, and Asia and from Australia and New Zealand; support also came from the second National Study Conference on the Churches and a Just and Durable Peace, which met in January 1945 and recommended, as an amendment to the Dumbarton Proposals, that "A special commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms should be established."⁶

The Federal Council of Churches assigned Nolde the responsibility of pressing human rights concerns at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. On May 2nd, after it had become obvious "that prompt and virtually drastic action was needed if substantial provisions for human rights were to be inserted in the Charter," Nolde led a delegation of nongovernmental representatives to a meeting with U.S. secretary of state Stettinius.⁷ The secretary of state indicated there was little chance of securing additional human rights provisions in the Charter, but Nolde made a strong statement urging reconsideration. The representative of the American Jewish Committee, Judge Proskauer, also firmly supported the human rights additions.⁸

The effect of this intervention was summarized in an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 4 May 1945:

The rights of individuals, as well as the rights of nations, will be incorporated in the San Francisco Charter it was learned today, largely as the result of the efforts of a Philadelphia clergyman [Nolde, who was a professor in the Lutheran Theological Seminary there]. . .. The "revolt" from the "little people," who had previously been complaining that they were completely out of touch with the American delegation and were not being consulted although they are consultants, reportedly made a great impression on Mr. Stettinius.⁹

This report is confirmed by Edward Duff, who claims the private papers of Senator Vandenberg support Nolde's assertion that "an international Christian influence played a determining part in achieving the more extensive provisions for human rights and fundamental freedoms which ultimately found their way into the Charter."¹⁰

In 1946 the Academy of Political and Social Science devoted its January issue of The Annals to the question of "Essential Human Rights." Of the twenty-five contributors, Nolde was asked to write the final article on "Possible Functions of the Commission of Human Rights." Nolde argued that the first task of the commission was to develop "an international declaration or bill of rights."¹¹ Copies of this issue of The Annals were flown to London and made available to the members of the Economic and Social Council as they deliberated on the Commission on Human Rights, and early in the first session of the General Assembly copies were given to all delegations. Nolde later noted: "A very substantial similarity exists between the terms of reference as finally adopted and the proposals contained in the January 1946 issue of The Annals."¹²

The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) was established in 1946 as a joint agency of the World Council of Churches (which was in the process of forming) and the International Missionary Council. Nolde became its first director, while continuing to serve as the executive secretary of the Joint Committee on Religious Liberty. Throughout 1946 and 1947, Nolde led the work of both groups in lobbying for clearer language with respect to "freedom of religion" in the peace treaties with Germany and Italy.¹³

The CCIA was early granted consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and thus churches in the ecumenical movement increasingly channeled their communications on UN matters through the CCIA. Archive materials reveal how extensively the CCIA was involved with the UN Commission on Human Rights, with governmental representatives, and with church leaders concerned that an international declaration of human rights include freedom of religion.¹⁴

During the drafting of the Universal Declaration the CCIA worked hard to be certain

that the preamble should reflect a basic approach to the observance of human rights which was acceptable from the Christian standpoint, even though it did not contend that a Christian position had to be enunciated therein. . .. As the drafting of the Universal Declaration progressed, the CCIA unflaggingly emphasized the principle that governments could not grant human rights, but could only recognize the human rights which man, by virtue of his being and destiny, already possessed.¹⁵

In a paper prepared for the Amsterdam Assembly of 1948, Nolde argued that there was an "immediate and urgent need for the development of the Christian view on human rights in terms which will apply to all men and which can be used in representations to national and international political authorities."¹⁶ This position of the CCIA was "formalized later in relation to the covenants."¹⁷

In a statement prepared by Nolde for the CCIA, the omission of any reference to God in the Universal Declaration was acknowledged as a concern for many Christians. However, the statement continues, as "it is the distinct task of the churches to bring men to faith and to a profession of that faith," Christians "cannot expect the United Nations to accomplish by legal fiat that which must be the expression of a prevailing conviction."¹⁸ Furthermore, "In interpreting the Declaration, the Christian has an obligation to contend that such rights as man claims in society derive from the Christian view of man's nature and destiny, by virtue of his creation, redemption, and calling."¹⁹

Seán MacBride, human rights leader and Nobel and Lenin Peace Laureate, notes that during this same period Monsignor Roncalli, who subsequently became Pope John XXIII, "played an important part in the formulation of the draft Universal Declaration of Human Rights," for as the Papal Nuncio in Paris he participated with René Cassin in the deliberations of the French delegation.²⁰ In addition, numerous Jewish groups promoted the idea of an international declaration of human rights.²¹

For Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights that drafted the Universal Declaration, the document was a "moral and spiritual" milestone for the world reflecting, if indirectly, "the true spirit of Christianity."²² Some Christians, however, were far less enthusiastic. A front-page editorial in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, initialed by Count Giuseppe dalle Torre, the editorial director, declared:

The new ethical-juridical edifice in which the man of the United Nations era is to find the security of a fortress, bears on its threshold the ancient warning: If God be not the builder of the house, its building will be in vain.²³

Given this resistance, and the historic distrust by the Roman Catholic Church of secular declarations of rights, it is remarkable that the Universal Declaration is affirmed in Pacem in Terris and also that it was John XXIII's clear wish that "the precise and juridical character" of the Declaration be supported "on the level of justice and legislation and not only on that of humanitarian assistance."²⁴ 

Global Support

As is evident from the preceding chapters, the Universal Declaration is affirmed by numerous religious leaders. In 1968 the YMCA published a book "to secure through group action solid implementation of the principles of the Universal Declaration."²⁵ In 1971 the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops added the weight of the episcopal college to that of the pope: "Let the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights be ratified by all Governments who have not yet adhered to it, and let it be fully observed by all."²⁶ Methodist José Míguez Bonino writes:

the drive toward universality implicit in our Christian faith, which found partial expression in the quest of the American and French revolutions, the aspirations expressed in the UN Declaration, finds its historical focus today for us in the struggle of the poor, the economically and socially oppressed, for their liberation. At this point the biblical teaching and the historical junction coalesce to give the Christian churches a mission.²⁷

Presbyterian Robert Smylie asserts that "the Universal Declaration is not only a profoundly religious document worthy of support, but a discerning spiritual challenge to Christians and the Church."²⁸ Similarly, Muslim Riffat Hassan describes as "truly remarkable" the passage of the Universal Declaration by the United Nations and suggests that though it is "secular" in terminology it is more "religious" in essence than many "fatwas" given by Islamic authorities.²⁹

Frequently, conferences will reaffirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The members of the International Consultation on Human Rights, sponsored by the Irish School of Ecumenics, urged in their final statement that Christian organizations at all levels "reaffirm their support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."³⁰ In 1978 representatives of churches participating in the International Symposium on "The Dignity of Man: His Rights and Obligations in Today's World" joined in "Carta de Santiago" (Charter of Santiago), which declared that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights still stands as "a common ideal toward which all peoples and nations should strive," for it "proclaims the fundamental concepts of the human being and of society, capable of being shared by those of all races, creeds and convictions."³¹

The International Association for Religious Freedom has urged governments to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by ratifying international human rights covenants.³² And in the 1979 "The Princeton Declaration" of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, the participants stated:

Adhering to different religions, we may differ in our objects of faith and worship. Nevertheless, in the way we practice our faith, we all confess that the God or the truth in which we believe transcends the powers and divisions of this world. . .. We are all commanded by our faiths to seek justice in the world in a community of free and equal persons. . .. We reaffirm our commitment . . . to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and we deplore the denial of human rights to any individual or community.³³

In 1985 the Conference on Religious Liberty and Human Rights, which included Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars, urged in its final statement that all governments disseminate in their national languages the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as other pertinent UN declarations and covenants on promoting religious liberty.³⁴

On behalf of the Agudas Israel World Organization, Isaac Lewin made numerous references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the struggle to resist anti-Semitism and other forms of religious tolerance.³⁵ Moreover, Shimon Shetreet reports that "in dealing with questions of religious freedom, as well as other human rights, the Israeli courts have also resorted to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights."³⁶

In 1975 Methodist pastors in Bolivia "formed an internal human rights committee for Bible study" and the next year the Permanent Assembly on Human Rights was organized, representing Roman Catholic and Lutheran as well as Methodist leaders, "for the purpose of enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."³⁷ Similarly, in a "Declaration on Human Rights and Social Justice," the Associated Members of the Episcopal Conferences of Eastern Africa in 1970 affirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for the right of parents to choose the education for their children and the right of free expression and association.³⁸

In Taiwan the General Assembly Executive Committee of the Presbyterian Church issued a declaration in 1977 affirming: "Our church confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord of all mankind and believes that human rights and a land in which each one of us has a stake are gifts bestowed by God."³⁹ The statement concludes: "As we face the possibility of an invasion by Communist China we hold firmly to our faith and to the principles underlying the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights."⁴⁰

On the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1984, the first Asian regional human rights mechanism was convened in Japan. The "Asian Human Rights Commission" appointed Clement John, secretary for international affairs of the Christian Conference of Asia, as Secretary General of the Commission.⁴¹ In 1987, speaking at a public rally in Japan protesting the fingerprinting of Koreans, Clement John asserted: "For Christians, protection and safeguarding of human rights is a matter of faith. Our involvement in the struggle of the marginalized groups is an affirmation of our faith in the crucified Jesus. . .."⁴²

Asian writers, who are not Christians, also affirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For instance, Indian Fali Narman argues that there "are no Eastern and Western Human Rights," but "only Universal Human Rights declared by the U.N. in 1948 and accepted and adopted by all its members—both in the East and West."⁴³ He asserts that the "true essence of the idea of human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration is the concept which gives priority to the recognition and protection of the fundamental rights of the individual."⁴⁴ Moreover, he suggests that this notion of inalienable human rights, which protect the individual against the ruler or in a democracy even against the will of the majority, is established in the "great American and French texts (of 1776 and of 1779 and 1791) which heralded modern democracy. . .."⁴⁵

Provisions of the Universal Declaration have been incorporated into the constitutions of many Asian countries.⁴⁶ Obviously, however, constitutional government in Asia is weak. In addition to limitations on human rights provisions in the constitutions, there is no history of true constitutional government in many Asian countries. For example, the dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Malaya, Azmi Khalid, writes:

The nation and society of Malaysia have sworn to uphold belief in the supremacy of the Constitution as well as the rule of law as both are enshrined in the Principles of the Nation. If we desire that the principles of nationhood be realized, then the legal system must emphasize not just the letter of the Malaysian Constitution but also a spirit of constitutionalism showing love of freedom, justice, and truth.⁴⁷

Perhaps because there is no indigenous tradition of respect for the law of a state, Asians frequently turn to international conventions and standards as statements of "higher law."

This is evident in a paper on human rights entitled "Declaration of the Basic Duties of ASEAN Peoples and Governments," issued in 1983 by the Regional Council on Human Rights in Asia, a nongovernmental organization of jurists from ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) nations.⁴⁸ After deploring the violations of human rights throughout Asia, the Council urged protection of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international human rights covenants, and all other international instruments. It based its position on three principles:

1. Human rights are not merely ideals or aspirations. They are claims that inhere in all persons and all peoples by virtue of their human dignity, claims that all other persons, peoples and government have the duty to honor. The concept of human rights is universal and dynamic. It is not the exclusive property of any one people, place, or region of the world. Its content enlarges as the needs of human beings and communities expand. But at its core is always the deep recognition of the inalienable human dignity inherent in every man, woman and child.

2. Every person and every people have the right to self-directed development. The primary goal of development must be both to wipe out poverty . . . and to provide an improving quality of life in all its aspects, material and spiritual, for all the people. Consequently, authentic development cannot be attained without respect for basic individual and collective human rights.

3. Human rights are violated not only by unjust acts but also by unjust national and international structures. To work for human rights then is not only to combat instances of injustice, it is also to seek to change structures that exploit not merely individuals and peoples but nature itself. One such structure is authoritarian government that denies the right of peoples to participate in making decisions that affect their life and the future of their children.⁴⁹

As a summary of the Asian perspective on human rights, this statement of principles illustrates the synthesis of traditions occurring throughout the Third World. 

Commentaries

The Universal Declaration is even the subject of commentaries by scholars in different religious traditions, a surprising fact, as a "commentary" is more traditionally the form used for discussing religious texts. Sultanhussein Tabandeh of Gunabad, Iran wrote A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And Israeli legal scholar Haim H. Cohn in Human Rights in Jewish Law has provided a commentary on the Universal Declaration from the Jewish perspective.

I am not aware of a comparable commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Christian tradition, although Protestants and Catholics have written at length about human rights. ⁵⁰ For instance, in The Ten Commandments and Human Rights Christian theologian Walter Harrelson argues, much like Cohn, that human rights can be derived from biblical duties:

In that sense, the Bible has much to say about human rights. It is possible to see in the basic understandings of human rights, reflected in, for example, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a large measure of the biblical understanding of human obligation under God.⁵¹

Harrelson goes on to argue for the development of a contemporary Decalogue to "contribute to the refashioning of a communal life under God in the world."⁵²

He suggests that in our modern secular world the basis for such a Decalogue can be drawn from Jewish and Christian understandings of the Bible. "The way is open to such an understanding. It would be analogous to the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. That list of amendments has very much the form and the force of Israel's Decalogue."⁵³ To meet the needs of our time he suggests the following set of commands:

1. Do not have more than a single ultimate allegiance.
2. Do not give ultimate loyalty to any earthly reality.
3. Do not use the power of religion to harm others.
4. Do not treat with contempt the times set aside for rest.
5. Do not treat with contempt members of the family.
6. Do not do violence against fellow human beings.
7. Do not violate the commitment of sexual love.
8. Do not claim the life or goods of others.
9. Do not damage others through misuse of human speech.
10. Do not lust after the life or goods of others.⁵⁴

He concludes by affirming that such a list can be supplemented by modern human rights statements:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . with its supplemental compacts and accords, offers a marvelous set of guidelines for the fulfilling of our commitment to fellow human beings in community. So also do the many summary statements concerning human rights and responsibilities that have been developed by the Christian churches, some of them in direct dependence upon the Decalogue.⁵⁵

Therefore, he believes the time is right "for the Christian community to reaffirm its commitment to such summary lists and to their restatement, study, and regular re-presentation within the churches."⁵⁶

However, Christians agree that the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not the same as the language of Scripture:

Despite the religious bases for universal moral community in each of the traditions, the language of human rights in the Universal Declaration is not the language of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian scriptures or the Muslim Qur'an. It is not the language that any of the three holy books uses to speak of the universal moral community of all persons.⁵⁷

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a summary statement that reflects the deepest aspirations of the peoples of the world. It is not the creed of a new world religion, but it is an affirmation of faith that has gained the support of many within the various religious traditions of the world.  

Conclusion

Additional evidence might be offered, but the point is made. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the cornerstone for efforts all over the world by religious as well as secular leaders to build a system of law so that the moral imperatives of human rights will be promoted, respected and enforced. It was created as much by religious as by secular leadership, it is understood within various religious traditions as reflecting the values of sacred texts and authoritative teachings, and it is defended and proclaimed by men and women of faith as the foundation for justice and peace in our time.

From Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious Traditions for a Global Struggle (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991).

[Have you done any research in this area?  If so, please share it.]