Observation: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

While searching for information pertinent to International law, I came across "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." After WWII, the allies joined together to form the UN, and on top of that drafted the foundation in international policy. This piece has influences from many important documents that were instrumental for the foundation of modern democracies, including the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, et al. In fact this document has been called the Magna Carta of international law, by Eleanor Roosevelt.

I think that as a foundation, this is the one of the best resources that address Human Rights and the specific legislation that should be promoted world-wide. However, something interesting was that as UN members, countries were expected to implement and follow the guidelines within their territory. Some of them would not ratify this document. Their arguments were based on the fact that this was "Westernized" policy, and that some of the ideals presented did not match local customs, traditions, economical systems and law. As a result, two further versions that addressed these concerns of the Declaration were created.

I find it interesting that as a person, one would assume that Human Rights should be universal, and they should be applied in all its rigor as is... However, I find it interesting that this world has the right to be diverse and have its unique systems. As a person investigating this matter, it would be of importance to understand the perspectives of other countries that do not agree with such legislation and why. I think that Western/Eastern philosophy, if geared towards the good of the people and humanity, should be weighed equally in a universal legislation. It should not be a battle of imposition.

As a concerned citizen, be aware that the grounds for international law and the human rights has been addressed. Further research will surely enlighten the flaws of this document and the specification of other protective rights.

~Marco