Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Author(s): Susan Waltz

Source: Third World Quarterly , Jun., 2002, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 437-448
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993535

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993535?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Third World Quarterly

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Third World Quarterly, Vol 23, No 3, pp 437C448, 2002 * Carfax Publishing

Reclaiming and rebuilding the

history of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights

SUSAN WALTZ

ABSTRACT The political history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR) is not well known and obscurity has fostered a number of assumptions
that require inspection. Recent scholarship challenges the notion that the UDHR
was uniquely sponsored and promoted by the Western powers, and indeed raises
questions about great power support for efforts to craft international human
rights standards. This article explores four political myths about the Universal
Declaration, each of which contains a grain of truth, but each of which also
misleads. If the historical role of large states in advancing human rights norms is
exaggerated, the role and contribution of small states has likewise been over-
looked. The Universal Declaration is a negotiated text and many states partici-
pated in its construction. Its legitimacy extends from the political process that
gave it shape and all states thus have an interest in small states reclaiming their
share in its history.

Few people are prepared to dispute the claim that human rights is a Western
concept. The claim bears some examination, however, because the ready identi-
fication of human rights with Western philosophy has given rise to a contempo-
rary debate over the universality of human rights. It has led some to question
whether international human rights standards can be compatible with the broad
array of world cultures.
It would be foolish to deny a connection between Western philosophy and the
modern notion of human rights: philosophical writings in support of human
rights are easily located in the larger body of Western thought. It is one thing,
however, to recognise the tradition of human rights within Western philosophy; it
is quite another to equate the two. Western philosophy is certainly not uniform
with respect to human rights. Alongside the philosophical proponents of rights,
one may find many prominent Western philosophers whose ideas are less
compatible with the contemporary notion of human rights. Aristotle, for example,
argued for the priority of the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, sometimes described
as the philosopher of the French Revolution, argued that individual rights were
subordinate to the general will. Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham minced few words,
dismissing the notion of natural rights as 'nonsense on stilts'.
Susan Waltz is Professor of Public Policy at the Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, University of
Michigan, 440 Lorch Hall, 611 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220, USA. E-mail: swaltz@
umich.edu.

ISSN 0143-6597 print/ISSN 1360-2241 online/02/030437-12 ? 2002 Third World Quarterly

DOI: 10.1080/01436590220138378 437

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

Philosophy, in any case, provides only one of the paths to consideration of

human rights. Human rights can also be analysed as a legal concept, with atten-
tion paid to positive law and justiciable claims. Likewise, it can be regarded as a
unique political project of the twentieth century, a series of political negotiations
that produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequent
international treaties.
It is this final approach that I adopt in this brief essay. If the idea of human
rights has been around for centuries, taking different forms in different cultures,
how was it transformed into the mid-twentieth century project of universal
human rights? How did we come to have a Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, followed by legally binding human rights treaties?
The answers to that question, based on recent research, may present some
surprises even to those rather familiar with the UDHR's history. In writing this
article I draw on several sources, including most prominently Paul Gordon
Lauren's The Evolution of International Human Rights, The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights by Johannes Morsink, my own investigation of the
contribution of small states to the UDHR, and Mary Ann Glendon's new work on
the role of Eleanor Roosevelt, A World Made New.' The collective effect of these
research efforts is to dismantle some prominent myths about the politics of
human rights. These separate research efforts also open the door to a broader
interpretation and understanding of the ownership of the mid-century commit-
ment to the protection and promotion of human rights.

Dismantling myths

Four popular understandings of the history of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights reinforce the idea that the mid-century human rights project was
the brainchild, and a favoured project, of the Western powers. Recent research
suggests that each of these understandings is a myth that requires re-examination.
As with most political myths, each of the popular understandings contains a grain
or more of truth. But in most cases the broader context has been swept away in
the mythical version, causing some players to disappear and others to loom larger
than life.

Myth 1. The UDHR as response to the Nazi Holocaust

Many assume that it was the Nazi Holocaust in Germany that inspired political
leaders to draft a Universal Declaration of Human Rights at mid-century. The
Nazis' brutally calculated atrocities, perpetrated on an unimaginable scale,
certainly shocked the world's conscience and provided political momentum, and
in that important sense the Nazi Holocaust cannot be separated from the human
rights project. As Herman Burgers' archival research has established, however,
both the pressures and the plans to promote an international bill of rights were
well developed long before the scale of the Nazi horrors was fully known.2
Non-state actors led the way in promoting the political idea of human rights.
There was great intellectual interest in the notion of rights at the opening of the
twentieth century. Movements for women's rights and minority rights flourished

438

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

in the West and elsewhere. In Iran Talibov-i Tabrizi published Izahat dar
Khusus-i Azadi (Explanations Concerning Freedom); in China, Kang Youwei
published early segments of his Datong shu (The Book of Great Harmony),
promoting individual liberty, freedom, equality and the natural rights of all
humanity.3 The International Federation of Human Rights was founded in Paris in
1922. By the late 1920s it was issuing calls for an international declaration of
rights. A decade later, during the first months of World War II, British socialist
and science fiction writer HG Wells published his own draft of an international
declaration of rights. A preamble was followed by specifically mentioned rights,
including the right to protection without discrimination and provision for basic
social and economic needs. Wells' manifesto was published in numerous non-
European languages and as the war progressed it was even dropped behind
enemy lines.'
Eventually Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the best known proponent of
international human rights, but during this period he had not yet spoken out on
the question. During the 1930s Roosevelt's attention was primarily focused on
economic recovery in the USA and powerful opponents within the Congress.
It was both disappointing and frustrating to Eleanor Roosevelt that FDR's
administration declined to pursue legislation against racially motivated mob
hangings known as lynchings; FDR was silent on the travesties of the Spanish
Civil War and his administration initially equivocated in its condemnation of
Nazi policies in Germany.5 By 1941, however, FDR's advisers had persuaded him
of the pressing need for political leadership internationally.6 Under the power
of Roosevelt's oratory, human rights and fundamental freedoms became the
rhetorical rallying point not only for Americans, but for much of the world.
Freedom was a Leitmotif in FDR's well-known speech to Congress in 1941, and
it was embedded in the Atlantic Charter produced by the USA and Great Britain
later that same year.
Roosevelt instructed the US State Department to examine the possibility of an
international bill of rights as part of its postwar preparation and planning. It was
through this process that the USA came to advocate an international declaration
of human rights. Through the same process US policy makers also expressed their
preference for a declaratory statement rather than a legally binding document.7
Some members of Roosevelt's cabinet, however-including Secretary of State
Cordell Hull-preferred not to pursue the idea at all, considering human rights as
war-time rhetoric best forgotten with the war concluded.8
But proponents of the idea were not ready to relinquish a dream nurtured over
many decades. For many, human rights were the very heart of a vision for a new
world order. In 1939 HG Wells had subtitled his human rights manifesto, 'What
Are We Fighting For?' By the time Auschwitz was liberated in May 1945 the
newly created United Nations had already committed itself to producing a
declaration of human rights. The full picture of Nazi atrocities, revealed to the
public over the course of the Nuremberg trials, only galvanised support.
At mid-century the unfathomable but undeniable truth of the Nazi Holocaust
hung over the UN like a heavy grey cloud, a sober and ever-present reminder of
the need to protect human rights. Nazi horrors supplied a collective memory, but
as constant and inescapable as that memory was, it was not the only experience

439

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

of abusive human rights practice that participants brought to the table as the UDHR
was shaped. The Spanish Civil War, and the ruthless bombing of Guernica, had
deeply affected many Latin Americans. Well over 200 000 Chinese had been
slaughtered when Japanese soldiers invaded and sacked Nanking in 1937. In
South Africa the Nationalist Party was rising to power on a platform of racial and
ethnic discrimination. Pakistan and India were at war that some called genocidal.
Tensions were rife in Palestine, where Zionist leaders would soon claim a right to
statehood, dispossessing and displacing thousands of Palestinian Arabs in the
process. Lynchings in the USA were common and the humiliation of colonial rule
was painfully familiar to many. Soviet intentions to limit individual freedoms had
long been apparent, even if the scope of Stalin's brutal policies were not yet fully
appreciated. Unfortunately, people who were ready to think about human rights,
and the need to protect them, had many experiences on which to draw.

Myth 2. Support of the Great Powers

It is commonly supposed that it was the Great Powers, victorious in World War
II, who championed the idea of human rights at mid-century. That is partially fact
and partially fiction. They were most committed to the idea of rights during the
war, but even then the commitment was not strong. As Lauren puts it, 'There
were times during the war when some Allied governments actually appeared to
be enthusiastic in leading the crusade for human rights'.9 After the war the human
rights idea quickly developed as a weapon in the Cold War. Beyond that, the
Great Powers generally sought to curtail or contain the rising interest in develop-
ment of universal human rights norms.'0
Plans for a new international organisation to replace the defunct League of
Nations began to take shape as early as 1943. Specific proposals were developed
and discussed by four powers at two conferences held in 1944 at Dumbarton
Oaks, just outside Washington, DC. The USA, Great Britain and the USSR
attended the first conference, and the second was attended by the USA, Great
Britain and China. The USA and China were proponents of including human
rights in the charter of the United Nations, although by 1945 the highest ranking
officials within the US State Department were not enthusiastic about it." Britain
and the USSR opposed the idea, and they twice rejected a proposal that the UN
be specifically required to promote the observance of human rights.'2 According
to Lauren, British officials were concerned that inclusion of language about
human rights would fuel unrest and threaten the Empire. Soviet officials knew
that an internationally accepted doctrine of human rights could not be reconciled
with Stalinist policies of coercive collectivisation, political purges, internal exile
and forced labour camps."
By the time China joined the Dumbarton Oaks talks, the Big Three had already
decided to obscure mention of human rights within the text.'4 It is ironic to learn
that China alone remained deeply attached to the idea of human rights and the
enforcement of justice, declaring its willingness 'to cede as much of its sovereign
power as may be required'."s Through the promise of human rights China hoped
to promote peace and combat the international racism from which its people
suffered.

440

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The finalised Dumbarton Oaks proposals were forwarded to the charter

meeting of the United Nations, convened in San Francisco in April 1945 (a mere
two weeks after Roosevelt's death). They contained only one reference to human
rights. Before the San Francisco meeting, however, the proposals were circulated
widely, and Latin American states held their own meeting, in Mexico, to discuss
them.'6 Through their efforts and those of New Zealand, Australia and France,
seven references to human rights were added to the UN Charter."7 Panama's
delegation came to the San Francisco conference with a draft declaration of
human rights (prepared by Chilean jurist Alvaro Alvarez), and many small states
were disappointed that the UN charter was not amended to provide enforceable
means of addressing human rights problems around the world.
Contrary to popular suppositions, at mid-century it was small states and non-
governmental organisations rather than the great powers who were the most
ardent and outspoken champions of human rights.'8 Some 42 US-based and
international non-governmental organisations attended the 1945 San Francisco
conference that created the United Nations, and, as William Korey has related, it
was largely thanks to their lobbying efforts that a Human Rights Commission
was established.'9 With the war over, large states were primarily concerned to
reorient their economies, reassert the doctrine of national sovereignty and project
their hegemony abroad.

Myth 3. The UDHR: a single author

A third myth surrounds the authorship of the UDHR. In 1968 French legal scholar
Rene Cassin, a former adviser to General De Gaulle and the Free French, was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to the drafting of the
Universal Declaration 20 years earlier. Rene Cassin developed an elaborate
metaphor to describe the textual architecture of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights,20 and he is credited with doing more to promote that foundational
document than any other single participant in the 1948 deliberations.2' Cassin
participated actively in discussions during the drafting phase: he condensed,
edited, rearranged and polished-and wrote out by hand-a version of the text
that had been prepared by the UN Secretariat. In the process, he provided a
coherent legal structure for the text. His contribution was substantial but,
contrary to the myth, he did not author the Declaration. Describing Cassin's role,
Johannes Morsink in fact goes as far as to say that Cassin 'did not really enter the
room until after the baby was born'.22
Morsink's terse comment extends from an account offered by the UN's first
director of human rights, John Humphrey. Humphrey's memoir suggests that the
initial draft he prepared served as the basis for the work of the UN's first Human
Rights Commission from 1946 to 1948. The Commission asked the UN to
prepare a working draft, and Humphrey set to work with the document prepared
by Alvaro Alvarez for the American Law Institute (and submitted by Panama to
the UN in 1946).23 He supplemented this draft with a review of numerous
national constitutions and commentaries from private individuals and non-
governmental organisations. The initial compendium amounted to more than 400
pages, including the collated sources,24 for he wished the draft UDHR to have the

441

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

fullest international grounding possible. Morsink's review of archival materials,

including Humphrey's papers on deposit at McGill University, substantiates
Humphrey's account. Cassin did eventually edit the UN Secretariat's draft, but
careful comparison of the two documents shows that at least three-quarters of
Cassin's text flowed directly from the UN document.25
In fact, the construction of the UDHR involved the energy and efforts of many
people. Over the course of two years (1946-48) the document was negotiated as
a stand-alone declaratory statement of 30 articles. During the first long phase of
negotiation, a drafting committee of eight states, and then the entire 18-member
UN Human Rights Commission, discussed, debated and amended the text
prepared by Humphrey. As chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Eleanor
Roosevelt presided over this process, and throughout it both non-governmental
organizations and states not represented in the Human Rights Commission were
invited to comment.26 In May 1948 the Commission referred its final draft to the
UN General Assembly's Third Committee, where in daily sessions over a two-
month period delegates scrutinised the text, article by article. Charles Malik
presided over these sessions, wherein some 168 amendments were proposed and
debated. Finally, the text was referred to the General Assembly for another round
of oratory and debate, and amendment, before a final vote. On 10 December
1948 it was adopted without dissenting vote (eight states abstained).27 It is
difficult to imagine a more elaborate process and, indeed, many expressed fears
that the declaration would be forever mired in discussion and debate.
For those more concerned with the content than with the origins of the UDHR,
the controversy over authorship may seem moot. However, the question remains
significant for those who, 50 years later, either claim or question ownership of
the document. Over the years numerous sources have credited Rene Cassin with
authorship. With the benefit of archival materials and close scrutiny of con-
temporaneous documents, however, it is now clear that the UDHR never had a
single author, at any stage. In a fundamental sense, the UDHR is a composite and
negotiated text.

Myth 4. US commitment to international human rights

Unwarranted inferences are often drawn from the fact that Eleanor Roosevelt,
widow of FDR, chaired the UN Human Rights Commission during the UDHR'S
initial drafting phase (ie before the opening of debates in the UN Third
Committee in 1948, which were chaired by Charles Malik of Lebanon). Eleanor
Roosevelt played a key role in the process that brought to fruition the UDHR
project. The process of drafting the UDHR was an arduous one made more difficult
by emerging cold war tensions. Mrs Roosevelt's grace and steadfast calm
were widely appreciated, and her political acumen and firm determination were
invaluable to the process. Without her the entire project might have been lost.28
Nevertheless, Eleanor Roosevelt made few direct contributions to the sub-
stance of the UDHR. Glendon summarises her political contribution by comparing
her to George Washington as chairman of the US Constitutional Convention:
Washington's presence was seen as politically crucial, but the document was
framed by others.29 In his memoir Humphrey lauds Eleanor Roosevelt's heroic

442

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

work in managing what was often an unwieldy debate among delegates with very
different perspectives, but he identifies the two main intellects as Peng Chun
Chang of China (Vice Chair of the Commission) and Charles Malik of Lebanon
(Rapporteur of the Commission and eventually Chair of the UN Third Com-
mittee).30
Whatever Eleanor Roosevelt's personal convictions, the positions she espoused
within UN bodies were constrained by the US State Department and political
currents at home. Eleanor Roosevelt may have been adored as 'First Lady of the
World', but in the USA, neither she nor the idea of human rights enjoyed great
popularity. In fact, by the late 1940s support for Roosevelt-era ideas was on the
wane in the USA. Right-wing opponents known as the Old Guard included
Senator John Bricker of Ohio and Frank Holman, President of the American Bar
Association. Both men fiercely opposed the international human rights initiative.
Their main consideration was the balance of power between states and the federal
government and the US president's ability to make international agreements, but
lurking just under the surface was the ugly question of race. Racists working
under the banner of 'states' rights' rallied to the Old Guard's arguments that an
enforceable human rights treaty would compel states to bring racist practices-
including lynchings-to an end. At one point the Old Guard had nearly enough
support to pass an amendment to the US Constitution limiting executive powers
to sign treaties. The initiative failed, but the margin was a single vote. By 1952
the pressure exerted by the Old Guard was sufficient to persuade President
Dwight Eisenhower that the USA should back away from the cause of inter-
national human rights.3" In 1953 the USA announced-and widely disseminated
-its intention not to ratify the covenants and essentially withdrew from the
process.32
US interest in the human rights project was shelved for many years. The US
Senate waited until 1989 to ratify the 1949 Genocide Treaty, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified only in 1992. The Inter-
national Covenant on Social, Cultural, and Economic Rights was signed by
Jimmy Carter in 1977, signalling US intent to abide by provisions of the treaty,
but it has not yet been ratified by the US Senate.
In the meantime, the US movement for civil rights and racial equality had
developed during the 1960s without reference to international standards of
human rights. Civil rights and constitutional rights remained important political
concepts in the USA, but human rights had slipped out of the political lexicon.
Members of Congress reintroduced it to Americans in 1974, in the aftermath
of the Vietnam debacle, but as a specific consideration of foreign policy.33 By
consequence, the USA's congressionally mandated annual report on human
rights practices covers every country-except the USA. Concerns about
domestic human rights practices are referred to the US Civil Rights Com-
mission; the US government prefers to reserve the phrase human rights for its
foreign policy.34

Negotiating the Universal Declaration: another view

The West was integrally involved in the mid-century project of human rights-

443

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

but its involvement was more complex and more nuanced than is generally
supposed. Non-governmental groups and other elements of civil society led the
crusade for international human rights in the West and beyond. Individuals like
Rene Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt were deeply committed to the protection of
human rights, and they used both personal skills and political position to advance
that cause. Western statesmen and governments, too, were sometimes disposed to
commit substantial resources to the defence of high principles. At the same time
and without apparent contradiction, these governments also sought ways to
advance their more narrowly construed interests through the project of human
rights.
There should be nothing surprising or curious about the large states' concern
for their own narrowly defined interests. Small states and the Communist bloc
countries behaved in similar fashion. Such are the common dynamics of politics.
What is curious, and surprising, is how a sense of proportion and perspective
about the mid-century human rights project has been lost, or distorted. Few are
aware of and appreciate the substantial contributions of small states to the
construction of the Universal Declaration and the two main human rights
covenants.
Three examples may illustrate this point. First, delegates from small states
were instrumental in removing gender bias from the text. Article 1 of the UDHR
begins: 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.' That
text represents a change from various drafts under consideration by the UN
Human Rights Commission from 1946-1948, which read 'All men are born free
..' The change from 'all men' to 'all human beings' owes much to the
insistence of Hansa Mehta of India, who in the Human Rights Commission
ardently defended the need for inclusive language against protests that the word
'men' should be interpreted generically.35 Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican
Republic echoed these concerns, arguing on more than one occasion that
countries that recognised rights for 'everyone' did not necessarily extend rights,
including voting rights, to women.
A second example extends from Articles 22-27 of the UDHR, which address
various social and economic rights. The Soviet bloc argued for this group of
rights, but so did most of the states that would eventually join the UN Group of
77. Latin American delegates were particularly attached to this issue, which they
linked to their own political histories.36 So, too, did the Syrian delegation, which
sought to introduce the notion of social justice, and the Saudi Arabian delegate,
who spoke with pride of the practice of zakat and the system of social security
anchored in the Muslim tradition.37 Delegates from the Philippines and China
introduced the right to food and clothing as basic needs (Article 25).38 And in the
debate on Article 16, Shaista Ikramullah of Pakistan-who was herself raised in
purdah-took exception to a proposal by the Saudi Arabian delegate and argued
instead that the full consent of both spouses should be required for mamriage,
full age.39
The debate over Article 2 presents a third example of the substantial con-
tributions made by small states. Within the body of the Declaration's enumerated
articles, the strongest expression of the principle of universality is to be found in
Article 2, which reads:

444

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether
it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.

This article was the subject of heated, and protracted, debate and dispute. The
first of the two clauses prohibits discrimination on the basis of personal attributes
and identity. It was fully supported by the UN Third Committee, with no
opposition and only one abstention. The second clause, which removes the
barrier of territorial status, was far more controversial. Communist powers intro-
duced the argument that rights should extend fully to colonised peoples, and
Egyptian delegate Omar Lotfi supplied the comprehensive phrasing-'whether it
be independent, trust, non-self-governing, or under any other limitation of
sovereignty'.40 The inclusion of this clause as an article unto itself was strongly
opposed by the colonial powers, and Britain eventually took the matter before a
plenary session of the General Assembly.
Although the placement of a phrase or a clause may seem inconsequential
today, the controversy must be viewed in historical context. In 1948 many
territories were under the control of colonial powers. Small states attending the
early sessions of the UN were active participants in the UDHR debate. They saw in
the concept of human nghts a chance to establish a new and respected standard of
behaviour for all governments, and hope for retrieving and extending their own
political autonomy. From 1949 to 1952 several of these states were at the fore-
front of efforts to develop international human rights law. Led by Afghanistan
and Saudi Arabia, they pushed to have the right to self-determination included
in the covenant that would turn the declaration of human rights into a fully
recognised instrument of international law. The result of their efforts is common
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights.4"
These three simple examples of small state contributions to the UDHR invite
speculation about what might have been the shape of the Declaration, and the two
covenants that anchor it in international law, had its fate rested in the hands of the
USA and its close allies, or with the USSR. To begin with, the UDHR might have
been a shorter document, an inspirational statement, as the USA wanted.42 A
mutually agreeable, 'least common denominator' compromise among the great
powers would no doubt have weakened the Declaration substantially. Throughout
the draft and discussion phases, the US resisted reference to discriminatory
practices and to socioeconomic rights; colonial powers resisted the idea of
universal extension of rights; and the USSR adamantly opposed the idea of
inherent rights that could not be rescinded by the state.
A continuously changing mix of small states, from all parts of the world, rose
to defend these various ideas. Their numbers were limited when work on the
UDHR began in 1946, but by the time the covenants were completed in 1966 UN
membership had more than doubled. Without the insistence of small states, many
of them newly independent, the human rights project might never have succeeded

445

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

in establishing legal obligations. Many states, including the UK, had initially
favoured a legally binding and justiciable bill of rights and were willing to pursue
that idea despite US resistance. As negotiations of the human rights covenants
dragged on over 20 years, however, the commitment of some states flagged, and
many of the original human rights defenders disappeared from the scene. There
were several points at which the entire project might have been lost, and
diplomats from smaller states were often the ones who argued to move the
project forward. At various moments and for various reasons, champions of the
human right project (or some aspect of it) included diplomats from the
Netherlands and New Zealand, Chile, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.43 In the end,
their perseverance produced the texts of the two covenants that establish the
bedrock of international human rights law. The text of these two treaties was
approved unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1966 (this time without
any abstentions), and they have long since acquired ratifications sufficient to
enter into international law.

Conclusion

What conclusions can be drawn from this brief review of the myths surrounding
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? At the very least, those concerned
about the broad acceptance of human rights claims must think critically about the
proposition that human rights were a Western political project. The record
suggests a much more complex history. The birth of the UDHR and its legally
binding companion covenants must be recognised as a political event. Like every
other formal agreement among states, the UDHR and the subsequent human rights
treaties were negotiated texts. It is the political recognition that accompanies such
negotiation, rather than any supposed intellectual lineage, that gives the UDHR
legitimacy as a standard for good behaviour by states and by peoples.
As Syrian delegate Abdul Rahma Kayala put it during the UN General
Assembly plenary session that approved the UDHR:

Civilization [has] progressed slowly through centuries of oppression and tyranny,

until finally the present declaration [has] been drawn up. It was not the work of a
few representatives in the Assembly or in the Economic and Social Council; it was
the achievement of generations of human beings who [have] worked towards that
end. Now at last the peoples of the world [will] hear it proclaimed that their aim has
been reached by the United Nations.44

Non-governmental organizations convening in Bangkok in 1992 registered

similar views:

Universal human rights standards are rooted in many cultures. We affirm the basis
of universality of human rights which afford protection to all of humanity ... While
advocating cultural pluralism, those cultural practices which derogate from
universally accepted human rights, including women's rights, must not be tolerated.

In our contemporary setting, discussions about the nature of human rights and
whether or not they can be considered 'universal' should be welcomed. Without

446

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

such discussions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot find a local
anchor. However, as these discussions progress it is important for proponents of
universal human rights to develop a more robust appreciation of the document's
origin. As the more obscure parts of the UDHR history are reclaimed, perhaps
arguments about the document's parentage can be set aside, permitting this
landmark declaration in its entirety to be claimed as a heritage for all.

Notes
1 Paul Gordon Laurent, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen, Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998; Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999; and
Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, New York: Random House, 2001. See also Susan Waltz, 'Universalizing human rights: the
role of small states in the construction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights', Human Rights
Quarterly, 23, 2001, pp 44-72.
2 J Herman Burgers, 'The road to San Francisco: the revival of the human rights idea in the twentieth
century', Human Rights Quarterly, 14, 1992, p 477.
Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 75.
4 See Michael Foot, HG: The History of Mr Wells, Washington, DC: Counterpoint Publishers, 1995;
Burgers, 'Road to San Francisco', pp 464-468; Lauren, Evolution of Human Rights, pp 152, 160.
Blanche Weisen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol 2, 1933-1938, New York: Viking, 1999, pp 243-247,
304-334,443-444.
6 Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 141.
7 Ibid, p 162.
8 Ibid, p 165.
Ibid, p 160.
1 See Tony Evans, US Hegemony and the Project of Universal Human Rights, London: Macmillan,
1996.
11 Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 167.
12 Farrokh Jhabvala, 'The drafting of the human rights provisions of the UN Charter', Netherlands
International Law Review, 3, 1997, p 3.
13 Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, pp 168-169.
14 Ibid, p 169.
15 Ibid, pp. 166, 331, n 112.
16 A LeRoy Bennett, International Organizations: Principles and Issues, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1995, p 50; and Burgers, 'Road to San Francisco', p 475.
17 See Jhabvala, 'Drafting of the human rights provisions', pp 1-3 1, passim.
18 See also William C Korey, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Curious
Grapevine, New York: St Martin's, 1998.
19 Ibid, pp 34-38.
20 See Marc Agi, Rene Cassin: Fantassin des droits de l'homme, Paris: Plon, 1979.
21 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p 29.
22 Ibid. In a footnote Morsink traces some of the events and publicity that led to a widespread belief that
Cassin provided the initial draft (p 343 n58). At a critical moment in the drafting process, Rene Cassin
served as rapporteur of a small working group. In that role, he was charged to prepare a draft
Declaration, based on an outline provided by the UN Secretariat. Some biographers later exaggerated
his role at this juncture, and by displaying his handwritten text, the United Nations helped establish a
myth of single authorship. Cassin did not exactly claim authorship, but late in life he did attribute to
himself 'sole responsibility' for the initial draft. See Glendon, A World Made New, pp 60-66 and
various notes on pp 252-253.
23 John Humphrey, Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure, Dobbs Ferry, NY:
Transnational Publishers, 1984, p. 32. See also comments by Charles Malik before the UN General
Assembly session on 9 December 1948, United National General Assembly Official Records, Third
Session, Part I, Plenary Session, 1948, p 858. Morsink's findings are reported in The Universal
Declaration, p 6. The American Law Institute was composed of jurists from all over the Western
hemisphere, and was heavily influenced by Latin jurists. See Lauren, Evolution of International
Human Rights, p 158.
24 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p 7.

447

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUSAN WALTZ

25 Ibid, pp 8, 29. AJ Hobbins, archivist at McGill University and editor of Humphrey's pap
diaries, has facilitated scholarly review of the relevant Humphrey papers. Glendon, thus, is able to
substantiate Morsink's claim, and in appendices to A World Made New (pp 271-280) she provides
texts of the 'Humphrey Draft' and the 'Cassin Draft' for ready comparison.
26 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp 4-11, divides this first phase into five separate
'stages', which include three meetings of the Human Rights Commission and two meetings of its
Drafting Committee.
27 Also abstaining were South Africa, the USSR, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia and
Yugoslavia.
28 See M Glen Johnson, 'The contributions of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt to the development of
international protection for human rights', Human Rights Quarterly, 9, 1987, pp 19-48; and, more
recently, Glendon, A World Made New.
9 Glendon, A World Made New, p 206.
Humphrey, Human Rights and the UN, p 23.
31 See Richard 0 Davies, Defender of the Old Guard: John Bricker and American Politics, Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University Press, 1993; and Duane Tananbaum, The Bricker Amendment Controversy.
A Test of Eisenhower's Political Leadership, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988.
32 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Vol. III, Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1979, pp 1550-1581.
3 See David P Forsythe, Human Rights and US Foreign Policy, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida
Presses, 1987, pp 1-23; and Lars Schoultz, Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin
America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981, pp 168-266.
Kathryn Sikkink offers a comparison of the US and European approaches to human rights in 'The
power of principled ideas: human rights policies in the United States and Western Europe', in Judith
Goldstein & Robert 0 Keohane (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political
Change, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
3 See Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp 116-119; and Humphrey, p 24.
36 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp 130-134.
3 United Nations General Assembly Official Records, 3rd Session, Pt. 1, 1948, Third Committee, pp
504, 515.
3 See Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp 192-199.
39 UNGA Third Committee, p 374.See also Shaista Ikramullah, From Purdah to Parliament (London:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
4 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p 98.
41 See Waltz, 'Universalizing human rights.'
42 Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p 8.
The only diplomat to have participated in the UN Third Conmmittee proceedings from start to finish
(1948-66) was Jamil Baroody, representing Saudi Arabia. See Susan Waltz, 'Universal human rights:
the Muslim contribution', paper presented to the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, Dearborn,
MI, October 2001.
UNGA Plenary Session, p 922.

448

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Sun, 05 Nov 2023 12:40:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms