THE Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by Resolution 217(III) of the General assembly It was not intended to impose legal obligation on States, rather to establish goals for states to work towards. Thus the operative part of the Resolution reads, "Now therefore, the GA proclaim this UDHR as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of the society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for this rights and freedoms and progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of the Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

Mrs. Roosevelt stated in the GA that the declaration was first and foremost a declaration of the basic principles to serve as a common standard for all nations. It might well become the Magna Carta of all mankind. She considered that its proclamation by the General Assembly 'would be of importance comparable to the 1789 proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man; the proclamation of the rights of man in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, and similar declarations made in other countries. A leading commentator has observed that 'there seems to be an agreement that the Declaration is a statement of general principles spelling out in considerable detail the meaning of the phrase 'human rights and fundamental freedoms' in the Charter of the UN. As the declaration was adopted unanimously, without a dissenting vote, it can be considered as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter of the highest order. While the

International Women's Day ‘02 Promoting Afghan women

On Friday 8 March, the United Nations will observe International Women's Day with a televised event highlighting the status of women and girls in Afghanistan entitled "Afghan Women Today: Realities and Opportunities". The event, organized by the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women and the Department of Public Information (DPI), in collaboration with the United Nations Inter-Agency Network of Women and Gender Equality and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), will feature addresses by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan and Laura Bush, the First Lady of the United States. This year's International Women's Day will be an occasion to celebrate the indomitable spirit, heroism and endurance of Afghan women and show solidarity with them and the commitment of the world community to their cause. The event will also focus on the needs of Afghan women and girls and suggest ways in which they can contribute to consolidating peace, and rebuilding and reconstructing Afghan society. The event will open with the screening of a short video on Afghan women produced by the Department of Public Information. The programme will be moderated by Shashi Tharoor, Interim Head of DPI, Declaration is not directly binding on UN Members, it strengthens their obligations under the Charter by making them precise.'

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was not a perfect document but it represented a greater measure of agreement on human dignity and its protection than had ever been reached among the nations before. It takes its place along with the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man as one of the seminal documents of human liberty.

The long and grueling United Nations debates, which preceded the document, ironed out many of the practical and ideological differences, that stood in the way of such a Declaration. Not all nations had traditions, which spoke in terms of individuals as bearers of rights. Not all nations were so liberal in their ideology as to agree lightly to fetters being placed upon their authority in the name of human freedom and dignity. Still after much debate, agreement was reached, consolidating beyond possibility of recall minimum content of human freedom, which was to serve as the foundation for further development.

The provisions of the Declaration covered such rights as the right to work, the right to social security, the right to education, the right to nationality and the right to asylum from persecution. These represented a considerable extension of the rights, which till then had found a place in the great documents of human freedom. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a great deal to say about the prevention of discrimination but it does not mentioned minorities. The refusal of the GA to include rules designed to protect them was one of the first concrete signs that the United Nations would not in the role of the League of Nations as the international protector of minorities.

It is to be remembered, that chronologically the Universal Declaration was meant to be first only of three stages by which the world would achieve an international bill of rights as a part of general international law. These stages were to be:

1 .A declaratory instrument defining human rights - achieved in the Universal Declaration.

2 .A series of covenants binding stages to respect these rights - achieved in part by two Covenants on economic, social and cultural rights, and on civil and political rights.

3 .Machinery for the implementation of the covenants - partially achieved.

The Universal Declaration is thus not a goal in itself but the first stage in a long and arduous process and it is in this context that it must be seen. It does not indeed claim to be anything more than an aspiration that this rights be achieved at national level and was by no means a statement of international law regarding the rights of world citizens.

In the world outside the UN the influence of the UDHR has been no less profound. It has inspired more than forty States Constitutions, together with the regional human rights treaties of Europe, Africa and the Americas, and examples of legislation quoting or reproducing provisions of the Declaration can be found in all continents. Thus the impact of the Universal Declaration has probably exceeded its authors most sanguine expectations, while its constant and wide spread recognition means that many of its principles can be regarded as part of customary law.

Critical appraisal

The Universal Declaration during its 51 years of operation has become a tool in the hands of certain countries (predominantly some developed countries) who have recently begun to use it for their own purpose. There is therefore re-thinking among jurists of some of the conceptual basis and assumptions upon which it rests:

(1)It was proclaimed immediately after the emergence from colonial rule of many of the signatory countries. Consequently they had no sufficient time for formulation of the declaration as well as reflection of their own values, and traditions, but were dominated by western concepts. As a result their legal system and lawyers, due to the western oriented concepts, would now cover a generation of experience like to reconsider some of the provisions of the Declaration in the light of this experience.

(2)After the promulgation of the Declaration many countries achieved their independence and their values and traditions are not incorporated in the Declaration.

(3)The Declaration is mainly concerned with the rights of the people but does not clearly defined what is called rights. The concept of rights evolved in the matrix of a European civilization forged amidst conflicts between church and state and ruler and ruled. Some nations did not give rights this degree of emphasis. Indeed the concept of rights as opposed to duty was unknown to some legal systems, such as Japan. Their traditional legal thinking evolved entirely in terms of duty. In China and the Islamic world, the orientation of legal thinking was towards duties instead of rights.

(4)The Declaration recognized civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In the democratic nations of Europe and North America civil and political rights and freedoms are well established and are given importance. Some of these nations place much less value on economic rights such as making sure that all of their people have a place to live, enough to eat and good health care. It should be kept in mind that "a society in which there is wide-spread economic insecurity can turn freedom into a barren and lifeless rights for millions of people." However, on the other hand Socialist countries place a much higher priority on such economic and social rights as the right to have enough food, full employment and adequate housing and health care. But they do not place such a high priority on political and civil rights. Though they have jobs, food and a place to reside many are not able to express their opinions freely travel, where they wish, vote freely or practice the religion of their choice.

(5)The Universal Declaration is couched in terms of individual rights, a concept that evolved in the peculiar historical conditions of Europe. Many ancient societies are organized around the group rather than the individual. The Declaration does not properly consider group rights; even the right of self-determination of the people is not incorporated.

(6)Property rights (as incorporated in the Declaration) of the individual are well accepted. Many nations however, reject the right of property as they argue that it leads to economic dominance by certain classes or groups within society.

(7)Lack of sufficient enforcement mechanisms is leading to a sense of futility in regard to some aspects of the Declaration. It may be pointed out that the insufficiency of enforcement mechanism is due also in part to the failure of many countries to sign the various covenants providing some machinery for the enforcement or supervision of human rights.

(8)The conflict is between the contract and property rights inherent in the concept of individualism underlying the Declaration and the concept of selfdetermination, which entitles a people to determine for themselves their political and economic destiny.

Dr. Chitta Ranjan Das is Associate Professor, School of Law, Queens University, Dhaka.