عالمی منشوربرائے انسانی حقوق1948ء کا تنقیدی جائزہ اسلامی شریعت کی روشنی میں

Reviewed by: Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Amy E. Eckert (bio) William Sweet, editor. Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights University of Ottawa Press. viii, 242. $24.95 More than fifty years have passed since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter 'UDHR') in 1948. Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights poses questions about the impact and legacy of the UDHR: 'What do we make of "human rights" more than half a century after the Universal Declaration - a declaration for which many, like [Jacques] Maritain, had so much hope? 'How does the [End Page 320] contemporary practice of rights fit with traditional theories of rights? What has been the effect of political and legal instruments such as the UHDR? What have events of the recent past shown us about these theories and declarations?' The UDHR, the first document to enumerate a set of globally recognized rights, marked a watershed in the internationalization of human rights, which were previously protected under national law. The essays extend beyond the scope of philosophical theory and the foundations of human rights, as the title would suggest, to questions of implementation and protection of these rights, a challenge that remains more than fifty years after the creation of the UDHR. The contributions to this volume are divided into three sections that address concepts of human rights, the UDHR's role in articulating and protecting human rights, and the challenges to the theory and application of human rights that have emerged since the UDHR. There is significant overlap among these three sections, and the questions of justification for human rights, or at least for particular conceptions of rights, never lie far beneath the surface. Additionally, three major themes cut across these three sections. One is on the question of the adequacy of consensus as a foundation for human rights. While consensus may treat certain practices as legitimate - such as slavery and colonialism - that later become discredited, we may also want to protect other rights - such as gender equality - that do not enjoy universal consensus. Howard P. Kainz's chapter rejects this consensus approach and grounds human rights in a more universalist foundation, a Thomistic conception of human nature. On the other hand, those more sympathetic to dialogic or discourse ethics see consensus itself as the basis for ethical norms. In his chapter, Bradley R. Munro describes the process of reaching consensus on the UDHR from within divergent ethical traditions. A second theme that cuts across many of the essays in this volume is the contribution of French philosopher Jacques Maritain, one of the principal architects of the UDHR, to the theory of human rights. A third focus of this volume is the impact of the UDHR on Canada's legal system. Jack Iwanicki examines the use of the UDHR and other international human rights treaties in decisions issued by the Canadian Supreme Court, while Paul Groarke and J.L.A. West address the liberal-communitarian debate in the context of the Canadian constitutional regime, arguing that a Thomistic model of the common good can provide a resolution to this divide by incorporating elements of the individual good. These common threads running through the book should not obscure the topical and philosophical diversity of the essays in this volume. Aside from the major themes mentioned above, other essays cover such topics as indigenous claims to land ownership, genocide in Rwanda, and women's rights. The approaches that the authors apply and evaluate include feminist theory, liberal models of rights, and virtue theory. The wide-ranging [End Page 321] discussion of the UDHR, and theories of rights more broadly, make Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an excellent sampling of human rights scholarship. In addition, the book provides a clear picture of remaining philosophical and practical challenges more than fifty years after United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration. Amy E. Eckert Amy E. Eckert, Department of Philosophy, Denver University Copyright © 2005 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

The urgency of the study is stipulated by the necessity to cover the process of project preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which will allow a comprehensive study of the nature of human rights, to understand their universal nature. The choice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an object of the study is determined by the special nature of this international soft law act. It is emphasized that the process of adopting this international act remains somewhat unclear among lawyers. The preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is hardly covered in the legal literature, which does not contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the Western human rights concept and relativism in the interpretation of human rights as a phenomenon within various legal cultures. Some aspects of project preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are described. The activities of the Human Rights Commission, which consisted of 18 members representing various political, cultural and religious groups, are noted. It is emphesized that starting with Art.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the words “All people are born free and equal…”, the developers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reproduced the idea of the universality of human rights, their global nature, that is not limited to a state or even a region. It is summed up that representatives of various groups of the population were involved in the work on the text of the document, creating an international act that was to consolidate human rights, to embody the ideas of equality of human rights, and their universal character. However, while adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not all states voted in its favor. Eight states have refrained from supporting it which is stipulated by a number of religious and political factors. At the same time, different interpretations of human rights by various states do not deny their universal nature. Covering the issue of human rights, it is advisable to disclose the process of preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which will allow systematically and clearly understand the nature of human rights, differences in the activities of various states concerning human rights ensuring.

Sixty years ago, on this day of 10th December 1948 at Paris, the state members of the United Nations, for the noble purposes stated in the 1945 Charter, for peace and respecting for fundamental human rights, dignity and values, maintaining justice and promoting social progress, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to solemnly affirm human values, which are inherent, inalienable, indivisible and interlinked, of each individual human being in the whole mankind community. Since then, the Declaration has become a common standard for all peoples, nations and states to pursue this noble course of humankind and to make their best efforts in order to guarantee, enforce and realise the fundamental human rights and freedom, as well as to promote and to strengthen tolerance and respect of human dignity and values. Despite the fact is that the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was not reflected the full representation of diverse cultures and ideologies, as well as its historical shortcomings, its establishment is a great ever achievement of humankind in term of the progress of liberty, equality and human rights. The creation of the UDHR reflected the noble aspiration of human beings experiencing thousands of years of human history, especially at the time of the massive killings of people as a result of the most destructive wars (world wars 1 and 2), genocides, the ideology-based divided world, and the ignorance of human values, dignity and freedom spreading out all over the planet. Therefore, the need of a common international standard was more than ever before required and the establishment of a universal declaration of human rights was evitable. One of the reasons why this document is the world's most widely recognised international document because every culture and nation finds it as not only a highest aspiration, but also a common heritage of their cultures, religions and traditions of thoughts. Above of those the UDHR is a global language of our world of diverse cultures and ideologies; it is the foundation of peace, security, tolerance and human development. The recognition of universal human rights has been echoing the long-lasting aspiration of human beings on the fight for their dignity, fundamental freedoms and development. Although set out in the UDHR sixty years ago and there have been a lot of achievements in relation to the evolution and realization of human rights for all peoples, nations and individuals, many universal human rights have been deprived and seriously violated across the world. This requires greater, consistent efforts of the humankind community in bringing fully the noble implications of the UDHR into reality. During over the last two decades, the rise of cultural relativism has challenged the legacy of the UDHR as well as universalism of human rights. Lie in the front of cultural relativism is the 'Asian values' perspective that denied the universality of human rights and championed their partiularity. Inspired by Confucianism and Communialism, which have been heavily influential on East Asian countries, the 'Asian values' perspective is indeed a rivalry of universal human rights. This paper is to respond to cultural relativism in general, and the 'Asian values' perspective in particular, thereby it reasserts the global values of the UDHR and universal human rights rested upon human dignity and fundamental freedoms as a global value of human rights that can not be culturally challenged or practically denied. It also reminds that the return of fundamental principles enshrined in the UDHR in the global context of cultural and religous conflicts is more than ever a necessity.

Following the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Islamic countries also decided to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights based on Islamic teachings. In this way, a declaration in accordance with Islamic principles is available to Islamic countries and the differences caused by the religion of Islam are considered, respected and acted upon. Different issues have been emphasized in both declarations, including women and the family. Therefore, the present study is a comparison between two declarations in the field of women and family issues. The method of collecting information is in the form of libraries and the method of processing them is descriptive-comparative. We see significant differences and similarities in both declarations on women and the family. Among the differences are the issues of paying alimony, raising children and equality between men and women.

Beginning with the phrase “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims its purpose of establishing global human rights from the outset. As a common standard of achievement for all signatory nations, the UDHR constitutes an essential cornerstone in the modern history of human rights by drawing upon ancient to contemporary philosophies, responses to the heinous crimes of World War II, and various visions for future human rights standards. Despite diverging viewpoints from many of the drafting parties and states, the UDHR eventually transcended conflict to form the underpinnings of a moral compass for all of humankind. This essay first explores how the UDHR came into formation by reviewing the historical origins of human rights, global dynamics prior to the UDHR, the drafting process and key debates involved, and finally its achieved compromise and ultimate unanimous adoption. Then, the essay examines ways in which the UDHR has evolved, from both a legal and moral angle, since its adoption in the context of past achievements and current challenges. From a historical point of view, I argue that the UDHR is a living document that has and is expected to change as our societies continue to evolve.

In this article the author explores what he terms ‘an emergent traderelated, market-friendly paradigm of human rights’, in contrast to the paradigm of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It focuses on a reassertion of the UDHR paradigm in relation to corporate governance and business conduct, looking specifically at the Proposed Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (‘Norms’). The article examines, in this respect, five central themes: the intertextuality of the Norms; the ‘network’ conception of trade and business conduct; ways of categorising human rights obligations; duties regarding implementation of the Norms; and, finally, related ethical theory concerns. 1. The Proposed Norms on Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnationals and Other Business Enterprises In The Future of Human Rights, the present author developed a contrast between the paradigm of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the emergent paradigm of the trade-related, market-friendly paradigm of human rights by which it was confronted. In this article a particular set of practices of resistance, which takes the form of full reassertion of the UDHR paradigm in Human Rights Law Review 5:1 (2005), 1–26 p Professor of Law, University of Warwick (upendra.baxi@warwick.ac.uk). This article is a revised version of a chapter that is due to be published in Baxi, The Future of Human Rights, 2nd edn (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1 Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 153. Human Rights Law Review 5:1 q The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org doi:10.1093/hrlrev/ngi001 relation to corporate governance and business conduct, is addressed. What is indeed remarkable is the fact that the articulation of this reassertion occurs under the auspices of the United Nations system, which otherwise fosters contemporaneously somewhat assiduously the trade-related, market-friendly human rights paradigm. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and, particularly, the SubCommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, provide important sites of critique and renewal. The Sub-Commission thrives on dialogical interaction with the non-governmental organisation (NGO) communities; and often its expert consultants (howsoever named) emerge from within these communities, or at the very least remain extraordinarily sensitive to activist critique of contemporary economic globalisation. This article focuses on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (‘Norms’), formulated by a Working Group of five independent experts. The adoption of the Norms, together with the Commentary by the Sub-Commission (on 13 August 2003), marks the first step in a long and perilous journey towards their final adoption. The Norms, now transmitted to the Human Rights Commission, remain open to further consideration within and outside the United Nations system and the comments and responses received stand slated for further consideration by March/April 2005. In the interim, the Sub-Commission’s Working Group stands mandated to assemble information from all relevant sources concerning implementation processes, as well as to further innovate these processes where necessary. The Norms, and the accompanying Commentary, had a very short gestation compared with the archetypal endeavour that produced a stillborn United Nations Draft Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations. Even more remarkable is their enunciative audacity, unfazed by glittering histories of past failures. Twenty-three articles provide an arsenal of general and specific obligations. Transnational corporations and other business organisations stand conceived as networks of corporate governance and business conduct. Ideologies of voluntarism stand replaced by those of regulation 2 See Globalization and its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, 15 August 2001, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13. 3 See the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, 13 August 2003, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003); hereafter cited as ‘Norms’. For the Commentary on the Norms, see E/CN/4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003). The latter document refers to ‘paragraphs’ rather than ‘Articles’; The provisions are here described as Articles. Further, all citations to the Norms are derived from the last document above. 4 See, for background analysis, Weissbrodt and Kruger, ‘Norms on Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Entities’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 901. See also Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995) at 592–7 and the literature cited therein. 5 E/C.10/1984/S/5 (1984); (1984) 23 International Legal Materials 602. 2 HRLR 5 (2005), 1–26

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Sociology and Human Rights in the Post Development Era

This article examines the problem of implementing the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 in the state legal system of Ukraine through the mechanisms of constitutional and legal responsibility. The author noted that such aspects as basic human rights and freedoms are recorded in this act; obligations of states in this area; mechanisms for the realization of rights and freedoms at both the international and national (state) levels; the responsibility of states that have ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the implementation of its provisions.The main emphasis is placed on the mechanism of implementation of constitutional and legal responsibility as a set of interconnected normative, institutional, functional and ideological elements (autonomous subsystems), which ensure the conscious use of one’s rights, performance of duties, compliance with prohibitions, and in case commission of a constitutional and legal delict – application of constitutional and legal sanctions for the purpose of ensuring constitutional legality, discipline and law and order.In the author’s opinion, despite the implementation of international legal norms, which are the basis of the content of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, into the domestic legislation of Ukraine through various legal mechanisms, including the mechanism of constitutional and legal responsibility, there is a significant difference between the normative level of their consolidation (de jure) and the actual state of existing legal relations (de facto). Here, the main reason, in our opinion, is the insufficient application of organizational mechanisms in the system of constitutional and legal responsibility in Ukraine, as well as the insufficiency of domestic civil and external international control over the implementation of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The “Right to Life” has been articulated in the third article of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948”. The Qur’an and Sunnah had also instructed about it centuries before. But the right has been violated throughout the world with impunity despite clear declaration and stern protection by the UN and paramount emphasis in the Qur’an and Sunnah for protecting it. This study explores the articulation of the "Right to Life" in both the UDHR and Islamic texts, examining how it is safeguarded by these entities and whether it aligns with Islamic teachings. The aim of this study therefore, is to explore how this “Right to Life” has been articulated in the UDHR and in the Qur’an and Sunnah; how it is being protected by UN and by the Qur’an and Sunnah; and whether this right is compatible with the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah of prophet (PBUH). Utilizing descriptive, analytical, evaluative, and critical methods, this research delves into the UDHR and the Qur'an to analyze and evaluate the "Right to Life." The study reveals that the UDHR's formulation of this right aligns with Islamic teachings, with no apparent contradictions. Claims that it advocates for the abolition of the death penalty are refuted, as it emphasizes the elimination of genocide, murder, and unauthorized killings, consistent with the Qur'an and Sunnah's preference for diyyah or blood money as an alternative to the death penalty, promoting forgiveness. Also, despite protection of the UN for this right, the violations of it, such as homicide, democide, genocide, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrest and detentions, are common across the world. The study recommends that if the Qura’nic teachings and protecting mechanisms that clearly bestowed regarding this right be recognised, the violations of it certainly be alleviated.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an international legal instrument, which for the first time formulated the foundations of modern democratic status of a human being and its fundamental rights and freedoms. Methodology. The methodology involves a comprehensive study of theoretical and practical material on the subject, as well as a formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. During the research, the following methods of scientific cognition were used: dialectical, terminological, formal and logical, systemic and functional. Results. The study found that the main features of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a source of international legal mechanism for the protection of human rights are: 1) it is a fundamental, foundational and universal international human rights act of the United Nations; 2) it establishes a system of fundamental human rights; 3) it defines a common system of fundamental international human rights standards; 4) it determines the principles of legal identity of a human being; 5) it determines the fundamental basis and principles of international legal regulation in the field of human rights protection; 6) it acts as an international legal basis for the adoption of the latest legislation on human rights protection; 7) it acts as an international legal basis for the codification of human rights legislation. Scientific novelty. The study found that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights points to the natural origin of human rights, which must be binding on all States and for the whole population, regardless of citizenship, in order to ensure the human rights protection in a democratic and rule-of-law State. Practical importance. The results of the study can be used to improve Ukrainian legislation on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

ABSTRACTThere is perhaps no text with a broader impact on our lives than the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is strange, therefore, that historians have paid so little attention to the UDHR. I argue that its potential impact on the study of history is profound. After asking whether the UDHR contains a general view of history, I address the consequences of the UDHR for the rights and duties of historians, and explain how it deals with their subjects of study. I demonstrate that the UDHR is a direct source of five important rights for historians: the rights to free expression and information, to meet and found associations, to intellectual property, to academic freedom, and to silence. It is also an indirect source of three duties for historians: the duties to produce expert knowledge about the past, to disseminate it, and to teach about it. I discuss the limits to, and conflicts among, these rights and duties. The UDHR also has an impact on historians’ subjects of study: I argue that the UDHR applies to the living but not to the dead, and that, consequently, it is a compass for studying recent rather than remote historical injustice. Nevertheless, and although it is itself silent about historians’ core duties to find and tell the truth, the UDHR firmly supports an emerging imprescriptible right to the truth, which in crucial respects is nothing less than a right to history. If the UDHR is a “Magna Carta of all men everywhere,” it surely is one for all historians.

Talvez não exista nenhum outro texto com mais amplo impacto sobre nossas vidas do que a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos (DUDH) de 1948. É curioso, portanto, que os historiadores tenham dado tão pouca atenção à DUDH. Declaro que seu potencial impacto sobre o estudo da história é profundo. Depois de questionar se a DUDH contém uma visão geral da história, trato das consequências da DUDH para os direitos e deveres dos historiadores e explico como ela lida com seus temas de estudo. Demonstro que a DUDH é uma fonte direta de cinco importantes direitos para os historiadores: o direito à livre expressão e informação, o de se reunir e fundar associações, à propriedade intelectual, à liberdade acadêmica e ao silêncio. Também é uma fonte indireta de três deveres dos historiadores: o dever de produzir conhecimento especializado sobre o passado, o de disseminá-lo e o de ensiná-lo. Discuto os limites desses direitos e deveres e conflito entre eles. A DUDH também tem um impacto sobre os temas de estudo dos historiadores: argumento que a DUDH se aplica aos vivos e não aos mortos e que, consequentemente, ela é um campo para se estudar injustiças históricas recentes ao invés de remotas. Entretanto, e embora seja ela mesma silente sobre os deveres centrais dos historiadores de encontrar e dizer a verdade, a DUDH sustenta firmemente um emergente direito imprescritível à verdade, o qual nada mais é do que um direito à história em muitos aspectos cruciais. Se a DUDH é a "Magna Carta de todos os homens em todos os lugares," ela certamente também o é para todos os historiadores.

Beyond Claim‐Rights: Social Structure, Collectivization, and Human Rights

The normative bedrock and corner-stone of modern human rights is the ‘International Bill of Rights’ (IBR) suspended by three-prong legs, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[1] While the UDHR did not articulate any child-specific human rights provision, a deductive reading of the broad spectrum of rights guaranteed in the Declaration disposes it as one of the strongest normative frameworks for the protection of child rights. As ‘a first step in a great revolutionary process’, the UDHR was intended not to be a binding legal instrument but instead a declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms.[2]
 In a bid to overcome the weaknesses of the UDHR and create a binding legal instrument, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights drafted a pair of binding covenants to complement the UDHR and constitute two of the three-prong stand of the IBR. They are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[3] and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[4] The ICCPR and ICESCR together with the UDHR form the IBR and jointly precipitated the expansion of international human rights standards in the form of treaties, declarations and conventions.

Human rights are the birthright of human beings. Irrespective of state, caste, religion, or creed, everyone has human rights that can never be transferred, and no one can curtail human rights. Human rights are universally recognized. Various human rights organizations have been formed to protect the human rights of all people around the world, and international and domestic laws have been enacted to ensure human rights. There have been two world wars in the world so far with bloodshed and gross violations of human rights. Especially the horrors of World War II, which started in 1939 and finished in 1944. Which were so devastating and a disaster for human rights that it was a gross violation of human rights. After seeing the horrors of World War II, world leaders agreed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was promulgated on December 10, 1948, through the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. Respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the member states of the United Nations, especially Bangladesh, have inserted fundamental rights in the constitution modeled after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and established the National Human Rights Commission for the protection of human rights. This paper is to draw the definition of human rights, the history of the formation of the National Human Rights Commission, its structure, and its functions. Along with that, the objectives of the National Human Rights Commission, the contrast between the reality with the motto of the National Human Rights Commission, and the failure of the Human Rights Commission to solve or reduce the violations of human rights and emerging problems in Bangladesh will be highlighted, as well as some recommendations.