Michael Hass notes the influence of previous eras in the incremental developments that led to the modern notion of human rights and the UDHR, which was drafted following World War atrocities.262 In her discussion of the creation of the Declaration, Mary Ann Glendon observes the divergent philosophical and ethical traditions that were brought together to inform a notion of universal human rights.263 She argues that the Declaration recognises the ‘common convictions’ of humanity and predominantly emphasises that human rights should not be perceived
261
For additional historical reading, see Maurice Cranston, What Are Human Rights? (Bodley Head 1973). For a very good collection on current debates, see Rowan Cruft, S Matthew Liao and Massimo Renzo (eds),
Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2015).
262
Hass (2014).
263
Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
95 as the rights of individual sole agents but as entitlements that are grounded in the fact that individuals are constituted by and through relationships with others. Though there are references to the free development of individuality and references to basic individual freedoms, she argues that the historical documents that record the development of the Declaration make it clear that community and duties to each other were to be recognised. These documents are very explicit on the point that everyone is mutually dependent.264
On Glendon’s view, the final Declaration makes it clear that the individual is not a lone bearer of rights. There is some support for this view: the first sentence of the Preamble to the Declaration speaks of equal rights for all members of the human family. The second sentence says that disregard and contempt have led to barbarous acts against the conscience of mankind. The Preamble goes on to say that human rights aim to deal with tyranny and oppression on the basis of the dignity and worth of the human person. Article 1 confirms that ‘[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’.265
Glendon’s views challenge the idea that a Kantian notion of a total autonomy of the individual as the author and legislator of her own life should ground human rights. Evidence suggests, though, that the drafting of the Declaration was fraught with conceptual difficulties regarding individual autonomy and the need to speak of rights in terms of a human family. For example, the Syrian delegation were keen to suggest that human rights were to be defined in terms of the individual because
264
Available at <http://research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee/1> accessed 28 June 2017.
265
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A) (III) (UDHR) Preamble and Article 1.
96 rights and freedoms for individuals gave all an equal chance to develop their capacities and live as men wished to live. This would ensure that men would live in friendship with each other: it would facilitate social justice and a sense of brotherhood.266
On the other hand, at a meeting on the day of its proclamation, the Yugoslavian representative commented that the current text of the Declaration was objectionable. He argued that human rights should not focus on individualism but should recognise the interdependence of the individual and his community. He remarked that ‘[t]he text before the assembly was based on individualistic concepts which considered man to be an isolated individual ...’, and that ‘[t]he Declaration was, in certain respects, not based on reality, because it described man as an isolated individual and overlooked the fact that he was also a member of a community’.267
The records of the drafting committee reveal that absolute individual autonomy was never accepted as appropriate and complete grounds for the basic human rights it was developing. What is certain is that there was widespread agreement that the rights being articulated were:
… based on the most ancient ideas of the great philosophers and on the concept that the power of the State must rest on the respect for the human person. [the draft] was a concrete
266
United Nations ‘One Hundred and Eighty Third Plenary Meeting. Continuation of the Discussion on the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Report of the Third Committee (A/777)’ A/PV.183, 921-923
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/23/PDF/NL481223.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 24 February 2017.
267
United Nations ‘One Hundred and Eighty Third Plenary Meeting. Continuation of the Discussion on the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Report of the Third Committee (A/777)’ A/PV.183, 913-914
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/23/PDF/NL481223.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 24 February 2017.
97 expression of that trend of thought which now shaped the
conscience of nations.268
Human rights were, thus, conceptualised as ethically grounded in some concept of human individualism, and promoted as necessary to prevent arbitrary state power. They were devised in the absence of discussion regarding the criteria for moral standing and took human dignity, as grounds for respect, for granted. The Declaration, thus, made no reference to nonhuman moral standing and did not explicate non-abstract grounds for the prioritising of human beings. Though there is some evidence to suggest that the Declaration was grounded on the view that individuals constitute the community of humanity – and, importantly, one that is vulnerable to arbitrary abuse of power – there is no consideration of nonhumans constituting an extension to this community, of their vulnerability, or of the possibility that they suffered from the infliction of arbitrary power exercised over them. In addition, the Declaration orients strongly in the direction of rights for individuals and makes little reference to duties to suffering others in community.269