Universalizing human rights: The role of small states in the construction of the universal declaration of human rights

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 42-72

  Waltz, Susan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEGEMONY; HUMAN RIGHTS; STATE ROLE;

EID: 0034976619     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2001.0012     Document Type: Article

References (141)

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess. (Resolutions, pt. 1), at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948), reprinted in 43 AM. J. INT'L L. 127 (Supp. 1949) [hereinafter UDHR].
2. JACK DONNELLY, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (1989); JOHAN GALTUNG, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A ANOTHER KEY (1994); ANN ELIZABETH MAYER, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (1995); HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES: A QUEST FOR CONSENSUS (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im ed., 1991); Michael Freeman, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, 16 HUM. RTS. Q. 491 (1994).
3. JACK DONNELLY, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (1989); JOHAN GALTUNG, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A ANOTHER KEY (1994); ANN ELIZABETH MAYER, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (1995); HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES: A QUEST FOR CONSENSUS (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im ed., 1991); Michael Freeman, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, 16 HUM. RTS. Q. 491 (1994).
4. JACK DONNELLY, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (1989); JOHAN GALTUNG, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A ANOTHER KEY (1994); ANN ELIZABETH MAYER, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (1995); HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES: A QUEST FOR CONSENSUS (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im ed., 1991); Michael Freeman, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, 16 HUM. RTS. Q. 491 (1994).
5. JACK DONNELLY, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (1989); JOHAN GALTUNG, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A ANOTHER KEY (1994); ANN ELIZABETH MAYER, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (1995); HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES: A QUEST FOR CONSENSUS (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im ed., 1991); Michael Freeman, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, 16 HUM. RTS. Q. 491 (1994).
6. JACK DONNELLY, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (1989); JOHAN GALTUNG, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A ANOTHER KEY (1994); ANN ELIZABETH MAYER, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (1995); HUMAN RIGHTS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES: A QUEST FOR CONSENSUS (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im ed., 1991); Michael Freeman, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, 16 HUM. RTS. Q. 491 (1994).
7. I have borrowed this term from Tony Evans, whose usage is similar. See TONY EVANS, US HEGEMONY AND THE PROJECT OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS (1996).
8. The evolution of this literature can be traced over several decades through publications in journals such as International Organization, World Politics, International Studies Quarterly, and Millenium.
9. See DONNELLY, supra note 2; R.J. VINCENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1986); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1991) [hereinafter FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION]; HENRY SHUE, BASIC RIGHTS: SUBSISTENCE, AFFLUENCE, AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA (1981); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: CONGRESS RECONSIDERED (1988).
10. See DONNELLY, supra note 2; R.J. VINCENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1986); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1991) [hereinafter FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION]; HENRY SHUE, BASIC RIGHTS: SUBSISTENCE, AFFLUENCE, AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA (1981); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: CONGRESS RECONSIDERED (1988).
11. See DONNELLY, supra note 2; R.J. VINCENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1986); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1991) [hereinafter FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION]; HENRY SHUE, BASIC RIGHTS: SUBSISTENCE, AFFLUENCE, AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA (1981); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: CONGRESS RECONSIDERED (1988).
12. See DONNELLY, supra note 2; R.J. VINCENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1986); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1991) [hereinafter FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION]; HENRY SHUE, BASIC RIGHTS: SUBSISTENCE, AFFLUENCE, AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA (1981); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: CONGRESS RECONSIDERED (1988).
13. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights comprise the "International Bill of Rights." For many months between 1946 and 1948 there was active debate about whether or not to have a single document and the exact form any document(s) should take. After the Declaration was acclaimed in 1948, debate continued as to whether there should one or two main treaties. Largely due to pressures from the United States - whose own internal political landscape had changed dramatically from 1945 to 1952 - the covenants were split. See EVANS, supra note 3, at 89-92. In this article, the term "international bill of rights" has two meanings: (1) when capitalized, this term refers to the three documents, namely the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR; and (2) when not capitalized, it refers to the entire political project before it was known that there would be three, not one, document.
14. See M. Glen Johnson, The Contributions of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt to the Development of International Protection for Human Rights, 9 HUM. RTS. Q. 19 (1987).
15. Roosevelt's speech proclaimed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. See LOUIS HENKIN ET AL., HUMAN RIGHTS 1108 (1999).
16. For additional insights into Eleanor Roosevelt's role, see EVANS, supra note 3; Johnson, supra note 7; JOHN P. HUMPHREY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UNITED NATIONS: A GREAT ADVENTURE (1984); A. DAVID GUREWITSCH, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: HER DAY (1973). As the Chair of the Commission of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt was invited to introduce the draft UDHR to the Third Committee for formal debate. See U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 3d Comm., Pt. 1, at 32-33 (1948) [hereinafter Third Committee Records].
17. For additional insights into Eleanor Roosevelt's role, see EVANS, supra note 3; Johnson, supra note 7; JOHN P. HUMPHREY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UNITED NATIONS: A GREAT ADVENTURE (1984); A. DAVID GUREWITSCH, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: HER DAY (1973). As the Chair of the Commission of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt was invited to introduce the draft UDHR to the Third Committee for formal debate. See U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 3d Comm., Pt. 1, at 32-33 (1948) [hereinafter Third Committee Records].
18. See, e.g., THE ELEANOR ROOSEVELT STORY (Richard Kaplan ed., 1966); ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: A RESTLESS SPIRIT (A&E Home Video 1994); THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: ELEANOR ROOSEVELT (PBS 1999).
19. See, e.g., THE ELEANOR ROOSEVELT STORY (Richard Kaplan ed., 1966); ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: A RESTLESS SPIRIT (A&E Home Video 1994); THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: ELEANOR ROOSEVELT (PBS 1999).
20. See, e.g., THE ELEANOR ROOSEVELT STORY (Richard Kaplan ed., 1966); ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: A RESTLESS SPIRIT (A&E Home Video 1994); THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: ELEANOR ROOSEVELT (PBS 1999).
21. See EVANS, supra note 3.
22. See JACQUES MARITAIN, On the Philosophy of Human Rights, in HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATION 72 (UNESCO ed., 1949). See generally HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATION (UNESCO ed., 1949).
23. See JACQUES MARITAIN, On the Philosophy of Human Rights, in HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATION 72 (UNESCO ed., 1949). See generally HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATION (UNESCO ed., 1949).
24. See GUREWITSCH, supra note 9.
25. See ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELEANOR ROOSEVELT (1992). For an account based in part on a review of Eleanor Roosevelt's private papers, see EVANS, supra note 3.
26. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9.
27. See EVANS, supra note 3.
28. See RICHARD O. DAVIES, DEFENDER OF THE OLD GUARD: JOHN BRICKER AND AMERICAN POLITICS 153-83 (1993); DUANE TANANBAUM, THE BRICKER AMENDMENT CONTROVERSY: A TEST OF EISENHOWER'S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP (1988).
29. See RICHARD O. DAVIES, DEFENDER OF THE OLD GUARD: JOHN BRICKER AND AMERICAN POLITICS 153-83 (1993); DUANE TANANBAUM, THE BRICKER AMENDMENT CONTROVERSY: A TEST OF EISENHOWER'S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP (1988).
30. See WILLIAM KOREY, NGOs AND THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: "A CURIOUS GRAPEVINE" (1998).
31. See id. at 36.
32. See Jan Herman Burgers, The Road to San Francisco: The Revival of the Human Rights Idea in the Twentieth Century, 14 HUM. RTS. Q. 447, 465 (1992).
33. See PAUL GORDON LAUREN, THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: VISIONS SEEN 72-138 (1998).
34. See THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: A COMMENTARY (Asbjorn Eide et al. eds., 1992). See also NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ITS ORIGINS, SIGNIFICANCE, APPLICATION, AND INTERPRETATION (1958); ALBERT VERDOODT, NAISSANCE ET SIGNIFICATION: DÉCLARATION UNIVERSELLE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (1964).
35. See THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: A COMMENTARY (Asbjorn Eide et al. eds., 1992). See also NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ITS ORIGINS, SIGNIFICANCE, APPLICATION, AND INTERPRETATION (1958); ALBERT VERDOODT, NAISSANCE ET SIGNIFICATION: DÉCLARATION UNIVERSELLE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (1964).
36. See THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: A COMMENTARY (Asbjorn Eide et al. eds., 1992). See also NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ITS ORIGINS, SIGNIFICANCE, APPLICATION, AND INTERPRETATION (1958); ALBERT VERDOODT, NAISSANCE ET SIGNIFICATION: DÉCLARATION UNIVERSELLE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (1964).
37. JOHANNES MORSINK, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORIGINS, DRAFTING, AND INTENT (1999).
38. See FDIH Homepage (visited 25 Oct. 2000), .
39. See H.G. Wells, Letter, War Aims: The Rights of Man, TIMES (London), 25 Oct. 1939; H.G. WELLS, THE RIGHTS OF MAN OR WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? (1940) (for the original draft of his Declaration of Rights and additional commentary on human rights).
40. See H.G. Wells, Letter, War Aims: The Rights of Man, TIMES (London), 25 Oct. 1939; H.G. WELLS, THE RIGHTS OF MAN OR WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? (1940) (for the original draft of his Declaration of Rights and additional commentary on human rights).
41. For a discussion of Wells' work, see Burgers, supra note 20, at 465-68 and LAUREN, supra note 21, at 152-53. Lauren notes that Wells' declaration was translated into Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Gujerati, Hausa, Swahili, Yoruba, Zulu, and Esperanto. Id. Wells also circulated his declaration among European and American intellectuals. For the broad range of Well's political concerns during this period, see MICHAEL FOOT, THE HISTORY OF MR. WELLS 253-307 (1995).
42. The document commenly known as the Atlantic Charter was initially released as the Declaration of Principles Issued by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 14 August 1941.
43. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 161-62.
44. See id. at 166. The four sponsoring powers were the United States, Great Britain, the USSR, and China. These were the four states that met at Dumbarton Oaks, producing the proposal for the United Nations, which was then discussed in San Francisco.
45. Id.
46. See id. at 148-49, 166-71; archival sources are referenced at 331-32.
47. See Farrokh Jhabvala, The Drafting of the Human Rights Provisions of the UN Charter, 64 NETH. INT'L L. REV. 1, 3 (1997).
48. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 165.
49. See Jhabvala, supra note 32.
50. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 26-980.
51. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 38-43.
52. Swiss women received the right to vote only in 1971. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 461.
53. See id.
54. See id. at 142.
55. See id. at 57, 92, & 131.
56. Bunche was replacing Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, who served in 1948 as the Security Council's mediator in Palestine. Count Bernadotte had been negotiating a ceasefire between Arab and Jewish leaders in Palestine when he was assassinated by Zionist extremists, less than two weeks before the Third Committee convened in Paris. See RALPH HEWINS, COUNT FOLKE BERNADOTTE: His LIFE AND WORK (1950).
57. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 316.
58. See Human Rights Questions at the Third Regular Session of the General Assembly: The United States Position, in 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1948, 289, 293-99 (1975) [hereinafter Human Rights Questions].
59. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 28-33. Morsink identifies by name approximately forty "second-tier" delegates who in his estimation made significant contributions during the drafting phase. Id.
60. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, Annexes, at 9-58.
61. See id. at app.
62. Id.
63. See SHAISTA IKRAMULIAH, FROM PURDAH TO PARLIAMENT 182-92, 202-08 (1998).
64. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 448-73.
65. See id. at 214.
66. See id. at 374.
67. See id. at 466.
68. See Johannes Morsink, The Philosophy of the Universal Declaration, 6 HUM. RTS. Q. 309, 310-16 (1984).
69. See Human Rights Questions, supra note 43, at 289-91.
70. See id. at 290-91.
71. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 37-51.
72. See U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., Pt. 1, 180th plenary mtg., at 860 (1948) [hereinafter U.N. GAOR, 180th plenary mtg.].
73. Forty-eight states voted for the UDHR in the General Assembly plenary convened on 10 December 1948; eight states abstained. A handful of those states did not participate in the Third Committee debates. See id. at 934.
74. In retrospect, it is difficult to assess Cassin's precise contribution to the process. He clearly annoyed Humphrey, who claimed that few were persuaded by Cassin's arguments. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 24. In her autobiography, Eleanor Roosevelt does not mention Cassin's contribution - though she mentions many others. See ROOSEVELT, supra note 14, at 24.
75. MORSINK, supra note 23, at 29.
76. See id. at 8.
77. Id. at 29.
78. See Mary Ann Glendon, Knowing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 73 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1153, 1163 (1998), citing MARC AGI & RENE CASSIN, FANTASSIN DES DROITS DE L'HOMME 317(1979).
79. See Mary Ann Glendon, Knowing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 73 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1153, 1163 (1998), citing MARC AGI & RENE CASSIN, FANTASSIN DES DROITS DE L'HOMME 317(1979).
80. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 32. See also comments by Charles Malik before the UN General Assembly session on 9 December 1948 in Third Committee Records, supra note 9 at 858. Morsink's findings are reported in MORSINK, supra note 23, at 6. The American Law Institute was composed of jurists from all over the Western hemisphere and was heavily influenced by Latin American jurists. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 158.
81. See Morsink, supra note 23, at 7.
82. See 1947-48 U.N.Y.B., at 1075.
83. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 23.
84. See id. at 23-25. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) posited and differentiated four kinds of law, including natural law and positive law. Attachment to natural law, of which Malik was a proponent, presumes that rational beings can recognize and will obey certain principles "by nature." Aquinas suggested that positive law could be derived from natural law, and this argument led Malik into deep debate with his colleagues on the Human Rights Commission. See id. at 23. As an aside, it is perhaps interesting to note that Thomist doctrine provided a Christian medieval synthesis of contending traditions then represented as Christian (drawing on Augustine and Plato) and Muslim (Aristotle by way of Averroes). See NORMAN F. CANTOR, WESTERN CIVILIZATION: ITS GENESIS AND DESTINY 351, 463 (1969).
85. Chang was born in Tientsin in 1892 and was educated at Nankai Middle School. After earning a doctorate in education he returned to China and became dean of Tsing Hua college. Chang was a member of the Peoples' Political Council of China under Chiang Kai-shek. He served as minister to Turkey and to Chile before becoming representative to the United Nations General Assembly in 1946. See 1947-48 U.N.Y.B., at 1055.
86. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 29; ROOSEVELT, supra note 14, at 316-17.
87. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 177.
88. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 40.
89. Not all of Chang's suggestions have been applauded. Morsink holds Chang responsible for "damage" to the UDHR that resulted when in the final days of the Commission's work, Chang successfully advocated moving the article on duties from its position as the second article to the end of the Declaration. Morsink speculates as to whether this late suggestion from Chang was colored by his preoccupation with events in China. On the day the change was made, the New York Times carried two stories about China on its front page - one concerning delays in a US-China aid bill and one about Mao's drive to Shanghai and Nanking. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 246.
90. Chang's speech is reported in Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 154.
91. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 30; MORSINK, supra note 23, at 30 n.72.
92. MORSINK, supra note 23, at 30. Santa Cruz would later lead the fight for a single human rights covenant to enact the Declaration and in so doing would earn the label of "mischief-maker" from Mrs. Lord, who replaced Eleanor Roosevelt as the US Representative on the Commission on Human Rights. See United States Policy Regarding the Draft United Nations Covenants on Human Rights: The 1953 Change, in 3 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1952-54, 1536, 1579 (1979).
93. Eleanor Roosevelt recounts one speech by Pavlov that referred to a Mississippi statute regarding the length of an ax handle that a man could use to beat his wife. She had an advisor telephone Washington for advice and was chagrined to learn that, indeed, such legislation remained on record. See ROOSEVELT, supra note 14, at 311-12.
94. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 30-31.
95. See LAWRENCE O. EALY, THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA IN WORLD AFFAIRS: 1903-1950, 125 (1951).
96. Less than two years later a Panama-United States dispute over the Panama Canal would be referred to the UN Trusteeship Council. Along with Chilean jurist Alvaro Alvarez, Panama's Foreign Minister (and former President) Ricardo Alfaro had participated in the elaboration of the American Law Institute's draft bill of human rights, upon which Humphrey based his own first draft. See id. at 154-57; HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 32.
97. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 188.
98. See Jhabvala, supra note 32, at 9.
99. In November 1946, Cuba, India, and Panama asked the UN Secretary General to include this item in the UNGA agenda, but it was instead referred to the UNGA Sixth Committee. See Matters Pertaining to the Development and Codification of International Law, in 2 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1949, 375, 386 (1975).
100. Cuba presented this proposal at the end of the 1948 session of the Third Committee, after that body had completed its debate on the Commission's draft text and shortly before the freshly debated draft UDHR was to be reported out to the plenary session of the General Assembly. The debate is recorded in Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 748-53, and is summarized by MORSINK, supra note 23, at 307-12.
101. See FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5; EVANS, supra note 3; HUMPHREY, supra note 9; David P. Forsythe, Socioeconomic Human Rights: The United Nations, the United States, and Beyond, 4 HUM. RTS. Q. 433 (1982); Tom J. Farer, The United Nations and Human Rights: More than a Whimper, Less than a Roar, 9 HUM. RTS. Q. 550 (1987).
102. See FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5; EVANS, supra note 3; HUMPHREY, supra note 9; David P. Forsythe, Socioeconomic Human Rights: The United Nations, the United States, and Beyond, 4 HUM. RTS. Q. 433 (1982); Tom J. Farer, The United Nations and Human Rights: More than a Whimper, Less than a Roar, 9 HUM. RTS. Q. 550 (1987).
103. See FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5; EVANS, supra note 3; HUMPHREY, supra note 9; David P. Forsythe, Socioeconomic Human Rights: The United Nations, the United States, and Beyond, 4 HUM. RTS. Q. 433 (1982); Tom J. Farer, The United Nations and Human Rights: More than a Whimper, Less than a Roar, 9 HUM. RTS. Q. 550 (1987).
104. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 31-32.
105. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 132.
106. See id. at 192-99.
107. See Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 504, 515.
108. See HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 24.
109. See GUREWITSCH, supra note 9, at 22.
110. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 119-20.
111. UDHR, supra note 1, art. 1.
112. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 91; HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 32 (noting his regret that the UNGA decided to remove reference to minorities from his earliest draft). On several occasions, Eleanor Roosevelt reminded delegates that issues of discrimination would be taken up with a separate protocol on minorities, no doubt a political concession in which the United States and the United Kingdom had equal interest.
113. See LAUREN, supra note 21, at 169-70.
114. See The United Nations, V. The Question of the Treatment of the People of Indian Origin in the Union of South Africa, in 2 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1950, 559, 559-75 (1976) (document originally classified "secret"). In 1950, South Asian states took the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa to the General Assembly. Over several months, the US delegation analyzed the situation as "a case of discord among two non-Communist governments," and in efforts to avoid exacerbating the conflict and thereby provide opportunities for the Soviets to exploit, they discouraged the initiative. Wat 561. The delegation was sent into a tailspin when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge briefly joined the delegation and forcefully disagreed with the position. As the delegate responsible for the item, [h]e was surprised at the innocuous Indian resolution, and he thought the United States should vote for it.... To him this item provided a great opportunity for the United States to build strength to overcome some of the grave disadvantages under which our country labored because of the civil rights question. Id. at 565. Following extended discussion, Lodge did make a statement before the UN's Ad Hoc Political Committee, but the US position remained an equivocal one, ultimately settled by Secretary of State Dean Acheson. See id. at 575.
115. See generally Third Committee Reports, supra note 9.
116. See id.
117. MORSINK, supra note 23, at 98 (emphasis added by author).
118. Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 740-46, 853-63; U.N. GAOR, 180th plenary mtg., supra note 57, at 932.
119. UDHR, supra note 1, art. 2.
120. Third Committee Records, supra note 9, at 745.
121. See The United Nations, II. Proposals for the Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination, in 2 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1951, 775 (1976).
122. Declassified documents reveal a discourse that was largely disingenuous, turning on procedural questions and oblique concerns. See Id. At one point, an apparently bemused Assistant Secretary of State with regional responsibilities queried how the United States had come to a position of "opposition to a resolution relating to a peculiarly American concept [self-determination]." Id. at 784. Previous passages make clear that the underlying concern was how to avoid alienating the French delegation, which was "very much worried about the inclusion of any kind of article on self-determination, no matter how carefully drafted the language might be." Id. at 787.
123. In a footnote, Morsink traces some of the events and publicity that led to a widespread belief that Cassin provided the initial draft. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 343 n.59.
124. KOREY, supra note 18, at 39 (emphasis added by author).
125. Defending hegemonic stability theory, Robert Gilpin writes: |A]n international system is established for the same reason that any social or political system is created; actors enter social relations and create social structures in order to advance particular sets of political, economic, or other types of interests. Because the interests of some of the actors may conflict with those of other actors, the particular interests that are most favored by these social arrangements tend to reflect the relative powers of the actors involved. ROBERT GILPIN, WAR AND CHANGE IN WORLD POLITICS 9 (1981). In a pertinent discussion of these matters as they pertain to human rights, several years ago David Forsythe challenged Jack Donnelly's assertion that dynamics within the American regional human rights regime, centered around the Organization of American States, could be attributed to the dominant power of the United States. While acknowledging the importance of Donnelly's contribution, Forsythe's examination of dynamics within the OAS regime suggests that US influence can be overestimated, and that a number of regime developments came about despite US opposition or passivity. See Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis 40 INT'L ORG. 599, 625 (1986); FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5, at 92-94.
126. Defending hegemonic stability theory, Robert Gilpin writes: |A]n international system is established for the same reason that any social or political system is created; actors enter social relations and create social structures in order to advance particular sets of political, economic, or other types of interests. Because the interests of some of the actors may conflict with those of other actors, the particular interests that are most favored by these social arrangements tend to reflect the relative powers of the actors involved. ROBERT GILPIN, WAR AND CHANGE IN WORLD POLITICS 9 (1981). In a pertinent discussion of these matters as they pertain to human rights, several years ago David Forsythe challenged Jack Donnelly's assertion that dynamics within the American regional human rights regime, centered around the Organization of American States, could be attributed to the dominant power of the United States. While acknowledging the importance of Donnelly's contribution, Forsythe's examination of dynamics within the OAS regime suggests that US influence can be overestimated, and that a number of regime developments came about despite US opposition or passivity. See Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis 40 INT'L ORG. 599, 625 (1986); FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5, at 92-94.
127. Defending hegemonic stability theory, Robert Gilpin writes: |A]n international system is established for the same reason that any social or political system is created; actors enter social relations and create social structures in order to advance particular sets of political, economic, or other types of interests. Because the interests of some of the actors may conflict with those of other actors, the particular interests that are most favored by these social arrangements tend to reflect the relative powers of the actors involved. ROBERT GILPIN, WAR AND CHANGE IN WORLD POLITICS 9 (1981). In a pertinent discussion of these matters as they pertain to human rights, several years ago David Forsythe challenged Jack Donnelly's assertion that dynamics within the American regional human rights regime, centered around the Organization of American States, could be attributed to the dominant power of the United States. While acknowledging the importance of Donnelly's contribution, Forsythe's examination of dynamics within the OAS regime suggests that US influence can be overestimated, and that a number of regime developments came about despite US opposition or passivity. See Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis 40 INT'L ORG. 599, 625 (1986); FORSYTHE, INTERNATIONALIZATION, supra note 5, at 92-94.
128. See Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, 12 MILLENIUM 162-75 (1983); THE ANTONIO GRAMSCI READER: SELECTED WRITINGS, 1916-1935 (David Forgacs, ed., 2000).
129. See Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, 12 MILLENIUM 162-75 (1983); THE ANTONIO GRAMSCI READER: SELECTED WRITINGS, 1916-1935 (David Forgacs, ed., 2000).
130. Evans, for example, has used hegemonic analysis to explain how, without the support of the United States, the multilateral human rights regime was weakened from the start. EVANS, supra note 3.
131. An internal memorandum of the 1950 US Delegation to the General Assembly notes: Many members of the Third Committee seemed to me to be motivated by deep emotional convictions rather than by the political considerations which are in evidence elsewhere in the assembly. They take very seriously the fact that the Third Committee deals with social, cultural, and humanitarian problems, and they take pride in discussing these problems on their own merits without regard to political considerations. . . . [I]n the Third Committee they take pleasure in voicing their independence and in functioning almost as though the "cold war" did not exist. The Question of the Treatment of the People of Indian Origin in the Union of South Africa, supra note 96, at 578.
132. See Burgers, supra note 20, at 450-54.
133. See The United Nations, I. The Draft International Covenant on Human Rights, in 2 FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1951, 740-42 (1976) [hereinafter I. The Draft International Covenant on Human Rights].
134. For additional information about Holman's role in this era, see DAVIES, supra note 17, at 145-91.
135. As suggested in note 104, realist approaches do help explain the United States abrupt (but little-remembered) change of heart about international human rights. Cold War concerns abroad and the defense of states' rights at home easily eclipsed the World War II rhetoric of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Almost immediately following Roosevelt's death - and just two weeks before the opening of the meeting in San Francisco that chartered the United Nations - the United States began to backpedal on its commitment to human rights. Korey is correct to claim that nongovernmental organizations played a heroic role at San Francisco. Their intensive lobbying of the US delegation was instrumental in persuading the United States to maintain its initial commitment. See KOREY, supra note 18, at 35; LAUREN, supra note 21, at 246-48. Eleanor Roosevelt, once appointed to the Commission, did become an ardent and formidable champion of human rights, but she had her own battles to fight with the US State Department. See I. The Draft International Covenant on Human Rights, supra note 112.
136. See DOMINIC MCGOLDRICK, THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: ITS ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 16-18 (1991).
137. See COUNTERFACTUAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS IN WORLD POLITICS: LOGICAL, METHODOLOGICAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES (Philip E. Tetlock & Aaron Belkin eds., 1996) (for an approach to evaluating counterfactuals).
138. See MORSINK supra note 23, at 8; HUMPHREY, supra note 9, at 39.
139. See MORSINK, supra note 23, at 96.
140. That prospect, however, should give some pause to human rights activists, for it was concern about just such a democratic deficit - expressed in the language of the day as "states rights" - that fed the most serious domestic challenge to US participation in the international human rights regime. The proliferation of foreign agreements during the Roosevelt administrations inspired Senator John Bricker and his cohorts to propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit a president from entering treaties and agreements without express consent from the federated states. Bricker's initiative failed by only one vote in the US Senate. Conceding defeat after a decade of ardent campaigning, American Bar Association President Frank Holman wrote to console Bricker, "[a]Ithough a constitutional amendment was not achieved the fight for it exposed and stopped the attempt by Mrs. Roosevelt and her do-gooders to superimpose upon our own Bill of Rights so called 'human rights' covenants, pacts, conventions, and treaties." DAVIES, supra note 17, at 191.
141. U.N. GAOR, 180th plenary mtg., supra note 57, at 922.