Overshadowed by the big, gluttony-prone holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas, Human Rights Day (December 10th, in case it isn't on your calendars) marks the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the UDHR—by the United Nations General Assembly.

According to the document's preamble, it is “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” Following this rather hopeful statement are the 30 articles detaining specific human rights.

In theory, this is all well and good. It's easy to be in favor of universal human rights, just as it's easy to be in favor of any general, vague principles, such as equality, democracy, or liberty. It is much harder to actually define what universal human rights are. In trying to define specific human rights, the U.N. was bound to trigger debate, or at least tick some people off.

Consider Article 26, which guarantees the right to an education. Sounds fairly non-controversial, until you consider that females in many nations—particularly those in the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and parts of East Asia—are often prevented from receiving any type of formal schooling. And the acid-tossing thugs of the Taliban certainly seem to have issues with “universal” education.

Even people who aren't women-hating, anti-education cretins can find items to take issue with. Libertarian-types are surely pleased with Article 17, guaranteeing the right to own property, but would most likely have problems with Article 25, which proclaims, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services....”

There is also the question of whether or not any of the rights enumerated in the Declaration are truly universal. The definition of universal is “embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind).” With that in mind, consider Article 19, which addresses the right to express one's own opinion. It would be great if that was truly a recognized, universal right, but it isn't. According to Freedom House, only 18 percent of the world's people enjoy the benefits of a free press. That's pretty far from being “a major part or the greatest portion” of the global population.

Like so much emanating from the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a well-meaning initiative that has accomplished little and is routinely ignored by the very same governments who signed on to it. It is easy, then, to be cynical about the UDHR... perhaps too easy. Quibbles about details aside, for the more than one-third of the Earth's people who live in nations where freedom is limited, even a weak, flawed attempt at establishing truly universal human rights is better than no attempt at all.

-GIR-

Brandon Bosworth is a freelance writer living in Hawaii and is GRIH's Publications Consultant.