On December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted the thirty articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It should be remembered that only 58 member states, which at that time made up the United Nations General Assembly, participated in the vote at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. We should also remember the few resistances that marked this adoption: those of the Communist bloc countries that abstained and preferred to emphasize economic, social, and labor rights – although explicit in the text – over those considered too political, favored by Western societies. Also those of some Asian countries which, over time, recalled the preeminence of a “collective” approach to rights over the one considered too “individualistic” in this text. Without finally mentioning the “reservations” that accompanied the international conventions related to human rights and subsequent to this declaration, reservations from most Arab countries keen to adapt and render this declaration in accordance with the application of Sharia law.
We will celebrate even more the dissemination of the “360 linguistic versions” of this text by UN services, as the “proclamation” clearly designates “teaching and education” as the essential means to develop respect for these rights and freedoms. However, one cannot fail to note in the preamble – a wise precaution that speaks volumes about the realism of the drafters – that this declaration constitutes “an ideal human goal to be achieved by all peoples and all nations.” A goal drawn in perspective, as elusive and unreachable as a desire impossible to satisfy – it amplifies and evades as one approaches it – and of which we do not know whether the distance of the objectives in time or the universality of the mentioned values constitutes the main obstacle. Has the dignified and noble ambition of the text not produced within itself its worst enemy?
However, we invite the reader to take a few minutes of their precious time to read this text (https://www.un.org/french/aboutun/dudh.htm) in the manner of “free associations,” a practice inherent to psychoanalysis: allow oneself to be inspired, at the statement of each line, at the reading of each sentence, by current events, immediate or past, national or foreign. There is no need for too much effort for as we go through each article, “come to mind,” even parade before our eyes, ample illustrations of shortcomings, impressive summaries of violations, diversions, and abuses offered by the atrocities of the contemporary world. So many images that shake our thoughts and darken our hopes. While the first twenty-seven articles open up a vast field of possibilities and arouse legitimate hopes for humanity, the last three, in their multiple interpretations, may limit the scope of all the others. They have often been instrumentalized by states in a sense contrary to the spirit and letter of the relevant paragraphs: the “order” that must reign on the “social and international” level mentioned by article 28 can serve dictatorships to justify themselves and make this transitional step on the long path to democracy acceptable. Article 29, which recalls everyone’s “duties” and “submission” to the country’s laws, under the guise of “others’ rights,” “morality’s demands,” and “public order,” provides a wealth of arguments to restrict the application of the previously established rights: we remember how the French Constituents of 1789 used the notion of “public order” to ultimately restrict individual freedoms. Finally, article 30 prohibits any action aimed at destroying these rights but remains silent on the damage that actions supposedly promoting them might cause.
Many states around the world are preparing to celebrate this anniversary. Some with pomp, others with more modesty. In light of the composition and work of the new United Nations Human Rights Council, we can better understand the latter than the former.
