Hayati Citaklar
20080875
102-4
Essay I
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted on December 10, 1948 by
United Nations, is one of the most important subjects in the twentieth century. Some people
assert that the fruition of the Declaration of the Human Rights emerged during the wars and
its origins is the Western countries; whereas the others assume that the idea of the UDHR
goes back on much earlier and also its formation process is fairly significant that people have
not already been learned accurately enough because human rights has more historical
background. Louis Henkin’s “The Universal Declaration (1998) and the U.S. Constitution”,
he claims that it was the Western countries, especially the U.S. and France which influenced
the Declaration. On the other hand Susan Waltz’s, who is the Professor of Public Policy at the
Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, “Reclaiming and rebuilding
the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (2002), she asserts that there are
myths about Western countries influence on the Declaration and she explains these myths by
giving details and examples with respect to understanding of Western thought. Although, both
authors’ arguments are good enough to explain the history of UDHR, because of her detailed
explanations, Waltz’s argument is so convincing with her clear and seasonable examples of
myths.
Henkin’s article is about the U.S. Constitutional Jurisprudence, U.S. Constitutional
sources of the Declaration and the Declaration and the Constitution’s Reciprocal Influences
with the history of through 18th century. First of all, according to the Henkin’s text, the
UDHR is adopted its ideas from the U.S. Constitution and also Western thought, especially
the U.S. and France. He assumes that French Revolution is an important figure of the U.S.
Constitutional sources of the Declaration (1998) and adds “U.S. Constitutional Jurisprudence
Citaklar, 102-4
1
inspired the Universal Declaration in spirit, in principle, and in detail” (Henkin, 1998, p.513).
For Henkin, the term “human dignity” first established for every constitutions as an every
human equality and he states the importance of human dignity, “’human dignity’ as the
touchstone of rights for national constitutional cultures” (Henkin, 1998, p.512). In other
words, this term is the fundamental point of the UDHR. Moreover, for him, all articles in the
UDHR are about to safeguard and the human nobility because the author asserts that “In an
ideal world- if national laws and institutions were fully effective- there would be no need for
international human rights laws and institutions” (Henkin, 1998, p.512). Furthermore, Henkin
suggests that human rights are the main purpose of the Universal Declaration because the
Declaration is only a declaration, not a treaty.
On the other hand, Waltz’s acknowledges that the idea of UDHR is influenced by
west; however, she claims that the fruition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is
much more complex and needs re-examination. In the history of Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, there are four famous conceptions but these are myths and they must be
reconsidered. The article follows by a different method by focusing on these dismantling
myths which need to be re-exmained: The UDHR as response to the Nazi Holocaust, Support
of the Great Powers, The UDHR: a single author and US commitment to international human
rights.
First of all, in the first myth, Waltz argues the Nazi Holocaust which is a debatable
issue in the matter of human rights.Waltz argues “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” (Waltz, 2002, p.438). She acknowledges the connection
between the Nazi Holocaust and the UDHR but for Waltz there had been many movements
about human rights which may also brought the fruition of the Declaration. She assumes that
there were published books and articles about women’s rights and minority rights in the
2
Citaklar, 102-4
twentieth century and adds that Nazi Holocaust was a kind of night terror which stick in
people’s minds because international bill of rights existed before the Nazi Holocaust then
non-state actors took a part in this era, this is one of the most significant things for revolution
of the human rights. However, UDHR was shaped not only with the Nazi Holocaust but also
with the wars like The Spanish Civil War, Guernica’s bombing and Latin Americans damaged
conditions, Japanese-Chinese War and tensions between Palestine and India are really high.
The other important issue about the first myth is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one
of the most influential figures of the advocating of the international human rights. Waltz
claims, “Roosevelt instructed the US Department to examine the possibility of an
international bill of rights as part of its postwar preparation and planning”, and adds, “It was
through that process that the USA came to advocate an international declaration of human
rights” (Waltz, 2002, p. 439).
About the second myth, “It is commonly supposed”, Waltz claims, “that it was the
Great Powers, victorious in World War II, who championed the idea of human rights at midcentury” (2002, p.440). At the end of the World War II, human rights issue rethought because
all equilibrium is changed but this new change is a kind of weapon. Governments planned lots
of organizations in 1944 to 1945. These are in many different countries in the world like
America, China and Britain which are the most imperialist ones and to engender all
inequalities, they support the human rights ironically. However, it was the small states that are
the outspoken and decisive ones for human rights, even though the Great Powers developed
specific proposals and organized the conferences. Furthermore the larger states primarily
concerned about their economies, sovereignty and hegemony.
Waltz asserts that a single author called René Cassin wrote the draft of the
Declaration, 20 years earlier and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She suggests “René
3
Citaklar, 102-4
Cassin developed an elaborate metaphor to describe the textual architecture of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and he is credited with doing more promote that foundational
document than any other single participant in the 1948 deliberations” (Waltz, 2002, p.441).
Nevertheless, Waltz argues that the reality is different than it is seen because for her, Cassin
was not the author of the draft of the Declaration; he was just the editor. She asserts, “He
supplemented this draft with a review of numerous national constitutions and commentaries
from private individuals and non-governmental organizations” (Waltz, 2002, p.441); and adds
“In a fundamental sense, the UDHR is a composite and negotiated text” (Waltz, 2002, p.442).
Waltz insists that Eleanor Roosevelt, who “played a key role in the process that
brought to fruition the UDHR project” (Waltz, 2002, p.442), have been adored as First Lady
of the World because of her effort to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights project; but
in the USA, neither she nor the human rights regarded. Also, even though civil rights and
constitutional rights signed and “remained important political concepts in the USA, human
rights had slipped out of the political lexicon” (Waltz, 2002, p.443).
Waltz ends her text with another view to the Universal Declaration. She assumes,
“Non-governmental groups and other elements of civil society led the crusade for
international human rights in the West and beyond” (Waltz, 2002, p.444). It may be a
widespread idea that the West shaped the UDHR, but when it re-examined, it can be easily
seen that it was the non-governmental groups and consumers, which she calls “players”, who
fight for and shaped the Declaration.
In epitome, on one hand, Henkin claims that it was the Western countries, especially
the U.S. and France which influenced the Declaration. On the other hand, Waltz asserts that
there are myths about Western countries influence on the Declaration with respect to
understanding of Western thought. Although, both authors explain their arguments about the
4
Citaklar, 102-4
history of the UDHR good enough, because of her detailed and seasonable explanations,
Waltz’s argument is very convincing and victorious.
5
Citaklar, 102-4
References
Henkin, L. (1998). The Universal Declaration and the U.S. Constitution. Political Science
and Politics, 31(3). Retrieved July 5, 2010 from JSTOR database.
Waltz, S. (2002). Reclaiming and rebuilding the history of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Third Word Quarterly, 23(3), 437-448.
6
Citaklar, 102-4