So, let’s keep today’s discussion going, yeah? I think we left off here:
On the one side, we all recognize that no country is able to provide fully all of the rights presented in the UDHR (although apparently four countries are doing okay). If the way things work now is any indicator, we just don’t hold ourselves accountable to all of these. They’re unrealistic on the home front. Further, the enforcement of the UDHR at the international level is a mess in a number of ways. When I went to the Amnesty International site to find the breakdown, this article popped up:
Now, who is going to arrest the former President of the United States for war crimes? Nobody. It doesn’t matter if he should be put to trial for what were absolutely human rights violations. It’s just not going to happen. That’s a political nightmare. Also, we have ideas about state sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and our own levels of responsibility that make enforcement across the globe difficult if not impossible. Given this, why shouldn’t we look at the way things actually are and create a feasible set of rights and goals, accepting our imperfections? OR accept that the UDHR is a lie? (Please feel free to correct me if I have presented this side of the argument incorrectly.)
On the other hand, since the UDHR was signed in 1948, the following things have happened (I’m sticking to the US for the moment): the Civil Rights movement and its legal and social byproducts, the second wave of the feminist movement, the elimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the institution of Miranda Rights, and the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Of course there are other things that we could discuss in terms of advances in human rights. Internationally, apartheid ended. I'm not saying the UDHR is responsible for these things, but interestingly, racial equality, gender equality, open public service, and fair treatment and trial under the law are all mentioned in the UDHR. In the face of the huge way we have left to go, these can seem like a drop in the bucket, but they’re really important. They are especially significant for those who had been excluded from the “build from the way things are; we can’t meet everyone’s needs” formulation before these things happened.
I’d also say that a number of these things weren’t especially feasible even as they were being sought. The fact that people were beaten and jailed while seeking their rights speaks to the point about human imperfection and the reality of society, but the laws changed, even if attitudes were (and still are) a little slower to come around. These groups claimed a right that was not being given to them and the laws changed. That’s why the UDHR is important. It gives an individual or a group the opportunity to reach for something better for themselves and it gives everyone else responsibility in meeting the needs of others. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard, even if we can’t meet it consistently, it still lurks around, reminding us of what we could have done and should do better in the future. It pervades our expectations and our discourse. For me, the UDHR is a standard of behavior that we created for ourselves and we have the responsibility to try and meet it.
What do y'all think?
I like the idea of the UDHR "lurking" and serving as a sort of conscience for the international community. Documents like this place responsibility on all nations, and when violations occur, the violator feels the heat of a guilty conscience. Now, the question is whether the guilt factor means anything for anyone. Guilt isn't going to change someone's mind when they're making a political or social decision. However, I still believe the presence of a conscience is a positive, regardless of its effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I liked the part when you said that laws changed even if the attitude of the public is still catching up. It made me think that laws are broken everyday so technically we could see them as being goals that we should all strive to live by. Sometimes people fall short of these laws but we still consider them to be important. We have laws against murder but people still kill sometimes. Just because, due to human flaw, this law is not always achieved doesn't mean that it isn't a valuable standard to have in our society. Having the laws means that we can expect people to uphold them even if sometimes they don't. Also having the laws means that we can punish those we violate them. The goal of the UDHR, just like the goal of our laws, is to create a standard which all people can be expected to live by. Why would we not want a society where respecting human rights is a standard?
ReplyDelete