It was interesting to read a news report a few weeks ago about the outgoing Attorney General Mukti Pradhan addressing a seminar organized by the Nepal Police “to promote rule of law and human rights”, and even more interesting to note what he said about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration). In his opinion, the Universal Declaration is “outdated” and “Nepal should formulate its own human rights doctrine.” This is an appalling statement coming from an Attorney General on one of the world’s pioneering international human rights instruments.
The Universal Declaration was adopted by the United Nations (UN) on December 10, 1948 “as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations”, setting out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. This is the very first comprehensive codification of human rights by the UN in the aftermath of the scourge of World War II that resulted in horrendous human casualties and material destruction. The Universal Declaration recognizes the “inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” as the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PHOTO: UN-NGLS.ORG)
The Universal Declaration serves as the mother document for all succeeding human rights instruments. The Universal Declaration, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is commonly known as the International Bill of Rights. Nepal ratified both the ICCPR and ICESCR on May 14, 1991.
The Universal Declaration contains 30 articles that define core human rights. Article 1 states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that they “are endowed with reason and conscience”. Article 2 sets out the principle of non-discrimination, and article 3 states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The rest of the articles set out the right not be held in slavery; right to freedom from torture or ill-treatment; right to recognition as a person everywhere before the law; right to equal protection of law; right to effective remedy for violation of fundamental rights; right against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty; right to privacy; right to freedom of movement and residence; right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution; right to a nationality; right to own property; right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; right to freedom of opinion and expression; right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; right to work; right to rest and leisure; right to education; and so on.
As the very first global document affirming the universality of the most fundamental of human rights, the Universal Declaration undoubtedly stands as a document that guides all states in achieving a minimum common standard of human rights. The point that I am making here is to counter the argument put forth by some people (mostly affiliated to the Maoist school of thought in our country) who hold that the very genesis of the Universal Declaration and the rights it outlines are the manifestations of Western expansionist, capitalistic and hegemonic concept of human rights formulated to maintain their colonial agenda.
The argument that the Universal Declaration carries the vestiges of colonialism iresults from an illiberal mindset.
This is gross generalization and over-simplification of the general spirit of the very words–just the words—that are in the Universal Declaration. Even if the drafting of Universal Declaration was led in the beginning by the US, the leader of the Allies that claimed victory in World War II, in subsequent phases the document, by virtue of its acceptance and adoption by the rest of the countries, has attained a universal characteristic that places it above any individual state.
The rights as set out in the Universal Declaration are equally relevant and should exist in the same manner in every state, no matter what form of system of governance it has—capitalist, socialist, communist, Marxist or Maoist. The right to life, liberty and security of person cannot be any different in a Marxist or Communist society than in a capitalist society. Likewise, the right against torture, the right to freedom, right against arbitrary arrest and detention, right to equal protection of law, and right to effective remedy cannot in any way differ from society to society or state to state.
The argument that the Universal Declaration carries in it the vestige of western colonialism is the by-product of an illiberal and orthodox mindset that refuses to acknowledge the principle of equality, freedom and democracy. In the modern times, only a dictatorial regime that is averse to respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of its citizens can refuse to own the Universal Declaration and abide by its provisions.
The author is a human rights lawyer
nirajannt@gmail.com
Related story
“Hotel Del Luna” Continue To Top Rankings For Most Buzzworthy A...
-1776353206.webp)
