speech on world human rights

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Eleanor Roosevelt Pushed for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By: Becky Little

Updated: July 13, 2023 | Original: December 8, 2020

“The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world,” Eleanor Roosevelt told a crowd in September 1948 at the Sorbonne in Paris. “People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves… People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.”

Roosevelt was there to speak about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , a document whose drafting she’d overseen at the newly-formed United Nations . The U.N. adopted the document that year on December 10, a date now commemorated as Human Rights Day.

The rights enumerated in the declaration were controversial among the U.N.’s member nations, and remain so today. It proclaimed, among other rights, that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” The former First Lady fought hard to make the declaration comprehensive and later wrote that she considered it “my most important task” during her years at the U.N.

Preventing War by Supporting Human Rights

The 51 countries that founded the U.N. did so in October 1945, just a couple of months after the end of World War II . In the wake of two world wars and the first nuclear bomb attacks , and in the midst of a global refugee crisis, many feared that a more destructive World War III was right around the corner. The U.N. was founded at a time when people like Eleanor Roosevelt wanted to avoid such a disaster and address human rights as a way of preventing war.

President Harry Truman appointed Roosevelt to the U.S. delegation to the U.N. at the end of 1945. By then, she was well-known in the U.S. and abroad. As First Lady during Franklin D. Roosevelt ’s administration from 1933 to 1945, she championed poverty alleviation, access to education and civil rights, and traveled to the European and Pacific front lines of World War II. In April 1946, she became chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and took on the task of drafting a human rights declaration for the world.

Roosevelt’s ideas about human rights and the need to work toward global peace were heavily influenced by her experiences during the two world wars. On the home front, she served food to World War I soldiers and “took the lead in making the federal government address shell-shocked sailors who were trapped in straight jackets in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in D.C.,” says Allida Black, a scholar at UVA’s Miller Center for Public Affairs and editor emeritus of GWU’s Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project .

She saw firsthand the death and devastation in Europe caused by the First and Second World Wars and continued to witness it during her U.N. appointment. In a column published in February 1946, she wrote about her visit to the Zeilsheim displaced persons camp in Germany. After meeting Jewish people who had survived the Holocaust , she reflected : “When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?”

Crafting a Declaration for All People

Creating the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was no easy task, given that nations like the U.S. and the Soviet Union couldn’t agree on what human rights were. Working on it required winning over people who disliked and disagreed with her like Republican John Foster Dulles, a U.S. delegate to the U.N. General Assembly who had protested the Democratic First Lady’s appointment. Roosevelt appealed to his Catholicism to get his support for including economic and social rights—which many U.S. conservatives disparaged as “communist”—in the declaration. And it worked.

“So the most hawkish Republican teams up with Eleanor Roosevelt to go to Harry Truman and the secretary of State to say, ‘We must have economic and social rights in this document; people must have access to food, they must have access to shelter, they must have access to education,’” Black says. “Imagine that.”

Hansa Mehta, a U.N. delegate from the newly-independent country of India and the only other woman on the Commission on Human Rights, also played a significant role in shaping the declaration. She is the one who suggested changing the declaration’s original language in the first article from “All men are born free and equal” to “All human beings are born free and equal,” says Blanche Wiesen Cook , a professor of history and women’s studies at CUNY and author of a three - volume biography of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Even though the declaration wasn’t a binding, enforceable treaty, it served as a model for legislation in many countries. After its adoption, Roosevelt continued to promote and speak about the declaration and the importance of human rights.

“She was very proud of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and she thought that it would be quickly followed by binding covenants,” Cook says. “But she died in 1962 and the covenants weren’t even ready then, and the U.S. didn’t sign the civil and political rights covenant until George Herbert Walker Bush ratified it when the Soviet Union collapsed .”

The United States has not yet ratified the treaty’s economic and social rights covenant .

HISTORY Vault: World War II

Stream World War II series and specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• The document that redefined humanity: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 75

In This Section

• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige
• Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.
• How to keep ‘TLDR’ syndrome from killing your policy proposal

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Kathryn Sikkink and former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth tell the story of the document some scholars call humankind’s greatest achievement.

FEATURING Kathryn Sikkink AND KenNETH Roth

43 minutes and 10 seconds.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Kathryn Sikkink and former longtime Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth have spent years both studying the transformational effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and working on the ground to make its vision of a more just, equal world a reality. On December 10th, the world celebrated not only the annual Human Rights Day, but also the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, which some scholars consider to be the greatest achievement in the history of humankind. It was the first time representatives of the world community declared that every person on earth was entitled to the same rights as every other, without discrimination, and no matter the circumstances.

It was an achievement that was both historically radical—legal slavery in the United States had ended just 80 years earlier—and yet one which made perfect, urgent sense in the post-World-War-II context of a humanity whose collective conscience was still reeling at the horrors and inhumanity of conflict. Appalled by the dehumanization and mass slaughter of the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis along with Roma, homosexuals and other groups, by Japanese atrocities including 2.7 million people murdered in Northern China alone, by the first use of atomic weapons, and by other acts of mass civilian killing, the world’s nations gathered to write a new definition of what it means to be human.

The result was the UDHR, which was drafted by a committee led by former U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. It was radical not just because it was so universal, but also because it was remarkably comprehensive—going far beyond basics like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It enumerated human rights to privacy, health, adequate housing, freedom from torture and slavery, the right to nationality, to take part in government, to work for equal pay, to have protection against unemployment, to unionize, to a decent standard of living, to rest and leisure, to enjoy culture, art, and science, and finally to a social and international order where the rights in the Declaration could be fully realized. Sikkink is a faculty affiliate of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS, where Roth just finished a senior fellowship. They  join PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli to explain how the UDHR has forever changed the way we think about our fellow human beings, and to suggest policies that will keep pushing the global community toward a more just, fair, and compassionate world. 

Episode Notes:  

Kathryn Sikkink is the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a faculty affiliate of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Sikkink’s work centers on international norms and institutions, transnational advocacy networks, the impact of human rights law and policies, transitional justice, and the laws of war. She has written numerous books, including “The Hidden Face of Rights: Toward a Politics of Responsibilities,” “Evidence for Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century,” and “The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics,” which was awarded the Robert F. Kennedy Center Book Award and the Washington Office on Latin America/Duke University Human Rights Book Award. She holds an MA and a PhD from Columbia University and has been a Fulbright Scholar in Argentina and a Guggenheim fellow. She is a member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Kenneth Roth is the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world's leading international human rights organizations, which operates in more than 90 countries. Roth has been called  “the godfather of the human rights movement” for his role in changing the way rights violations were covered in the international media. He first learned about human rights abuses from his father, whose Jewish family ran a butchery near Frankfurt in Hitler’s Germany. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses, devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the United Nations. He was most recently a senior fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS.

Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an AB in Political Science from UCLA and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University. 

The co-producer of PolicyCast is Susan Hughes . Design and graphics support is provided by Lydia Rosenberg, Delane Meadows, and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team.  

For more information please visit our  webpage  or contact us at  [email protected] .

This episode is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts.

Preroll: PolicyCast explores evidence-based policy solutions to the big problems we’re facing in our society and our world. This podcast is a production of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

Intro (Kathryn Sikkink): I would first go back to the creation of the United Nations, which happened in 1945, where 50 countries of the world, the Allies, not the Axis powers, assembled in San Francisco and were creating this new international organization, a new charter. And there was a demand to get human rights into the UN Charter, and they succeeded in doing that. That was a demand led by NGOs that were present as consultants to the U.S. delegation to San Francisco, and it was led by small states, including the 20 Latin American states that were present there. First, they got human rights into the UN Charter, and then people realized we don't have a definition of human rights. But the charter did set up a human rights commission as one of the few specified commissions that the charter demanded. And that new human rights commission got to work. People, delegations arrived from around the world, and started trying to figure out a declaration, a definition of what we meant by human rights. 

Intro (Kenneth Roth): It began to change really with apartheid in South Africa, which was just such an outrageous system that it was hard to say, "Oh, this is just South Africa doing its own thing the way any sovereign would do." That was the opening for governments to start commenting on each other's practices. It got a further jump forward with the 1973 Pinochet coup, which was then very much led by exiles from Chile who would go to Geneva and talk about the torture, the disappearances, the executions under Pinochet. And that also generated global outrage. So, it was really a handful of situations that broke the ice, where governments suddenly were not just comfortable saying, "Oh, that's what governments do. That's sovereignty.”  

Intro (Ralph Ranalli): Some scholars and advocates consider it to be the greatest achievement in the history of humankind: a worldwide declaration made in 1948 that every human person on earth is entitled to the same rights as every other, without discrimination, and no matter the circumstances. It was an achievement that was both historically radical—legal slavery in the United States had ended just 80 years earlier—and yet one which made perfect, urgent sense in the post-World-War-II context of a world whose collective conscience was still reeling at the horrors and inhumanity of human conflict. Appalled by the dehumanization and mass slaughter of human beings in the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis along with Poles, Roma, homosexuals and other groups, by Japanese atrocities including 2.7 million people murdered in Northern China alone, by the first use of atomic weapons, and by other acts of mass civilian killing, the world’s nations gathered to write a new definition of what it means to be human. The result was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted by a committee led by former U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. It was radical not just for it being universal, but also for being comprehensive—going far beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to enumerating human rights to privacy, health, adequate housing, freedom from torture and slavery, the right to nationality, to take part in government, to work for equal pay, to have protection against unemployment, to unionize, to a decent standard of living, to rest and leisure, to enjoy culture, art, and science, and finally to a social and international order where the rights in the Declaration could be fully realized. Our guests today have spent years both studying the transformational effects of the UDHR in the world and worked on the ground to make its vision of a more just, equal world a reality. Kathryn Sikkink is the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the award-winning author of numerous books on rights and international law. Ken Roth is just wrapping up his term as a senior fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at HKS and is the former longtime director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s leading human rights organizations which operates in 90 different countries around the world. They’re with me on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the UDHR to explain how it has changed forever the way we think about our fellow human beings.  

Ralph Ranalli: Ken, Kathryn, welcome to PolicyCast. 

Kenneth Roth: It's good to be here. 

Kathryn Sikkink: Thank you. 

Ralph Ranalli: So we're talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was created in 1948, and it marked the first time the world had a documented global agreement that declared all humans as free and equal regardless of sex, color, creed, religion, and other characteristics. It's been translated into over 500 languages, and it's widely recognized as having paved the way for the adoption of more than 70 human rights treaties around the globe. What were its origins? Kathryn, do you maybe want to start us off on this? 

Kathryn Sikkink: The Universal Declaration for Human Rights has its origins first in the interwar period, but especially after World War II. World War II made the issue of human rights on everyone's mind. We saw the terrible suffering and violence created by the absence of human rights in the world, and so, after World War II, scholars, diplomats, the NGOs and the general public were all committed to finally get human rights onto the world agenda and into international diplomacy. That was not only led by the great powers, like the United States and the United Kingdom, it was also led by many other countries in the world, including countries in Latin America. 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. I would just also say I think it's useful to see the Universal Declaration as part of this burst of standards setting that was very much, as Kathryn said, a response to the atrocities of the Second World War. So, within a few years, 1948, 1949, we saw not only the Universal Declaration but also the convention against genocide and the first four conventions of 1949 on the latter setting forth standards for the conduct of war. 

Ralph Ranalli: What was the feeling in that post-war period? Because you had the horrible revelations of the atrocities of the Holocaust, but also those committed by Japan in China, where millions of people were also killed. What was the atmosphere like that created this window where you could achieve something that was this sweeping and this unprecedented? 

Kathryn Sikkink: I would first go back to the creation of the United Nations, which happened in 1945, where 50 countries of the world, the Allies, not the Axis powers... World War II was still going on and still being finalized. So, these 50 countries assembled in San Francisco and were creating this new international organization, a new charter. And there was a demand to get human rights into the UN Charter, and they succeeded in doing that. That was a demand led by NGOs that were present as consultants to the US delegation to San Francisco, and it was led by small states, including the 20 Latin American states that were present there. 

First, they got human rights into the UN Charter, and then people realized we don't have a definition of human rights. But the charter did set up a human rights commission as one of the few specified commissions that the charter demanded. And that new human rights commission got to work. People, delegations arrived from around the world, and it started trying to figure out a declaration, a definition of what we meant by human rights. If I can just give one little example to give an idea of what was going on still, the representative from China was a man named P.C. Chang. He was in New York because his university had been closed when it was overrun by the Japanese, by the Japanese invasion of China. So, he happened to be at Columbia University, and the nationalist government realized he was there and appointed him to be a member of the Human Rights Commission. So we have to realize it was a time when people were having trouble traveling, and yet they persisted, meeting to try to hammer out this definition. So, there's a sense of urgency. I think, at the same time, as this was definitely still a post-war scenario, Europe was in terrible disarray, there was immense flows of refugees, reconstruction was barely underway. So, I think that has been the atmosphere of the time. 

Kenneth Roth: The only thing I would add to what Kathryn is saying is that the Charter does include the term human rights, but it actually means something a little bit different to what it's come to mean. That, I think, also reflects the limitations of the Universal Declaration in that, if you look to the Charter, it talks about promoting and encouraging respect for human rights. It doesn't use the terminology that today is associated with a bit of a tougher approach, which is protecting human rights. Promoting and encouraging sounds like every government's- 

Ralph Ranalli: Kind of aspirational? 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. Every government's supposed to do what's best, but it was still a very state-centric approach. You can see this really for the first two decades of the Universal Declaration because, if you go to the first of this United Nations Commission of Human Rights, its first task was to draft the Universal Declaration, but it then was the guardian of the Universal Declaration. What that meant was having nice, polite conversations about human rights and never naming any offender. That was the case for the first two decades because it was just encouraging, it was just promoting, and it was considered undiplomatic to name names. That's not what diplomats do. They don't say, "You, government X, are suppressing the rights of your people." They just say, "Wouldn't it be good if everybody respected human rights?" So, needless to say, that's not a very effective way of doing the job because, if nobody feels singled out if there's any pressure, they keep doing their own thing. But that was the product of the era, where, even though the UN Charter introduced the concept of human rights, the UN as a tribe of governments still gave priority to sovereignty. And it was really supposed to be the duty of each state to do what it was supposed to do within the realm of human rights, but not really the subject of pressure from others. They could talk about it generically but not talk about it in too concrete a way. That would still be deemed interference in the government's internal affairs. 

Ralph Ranalli: When did that change? You said it was the first two decades. I know Human Rights Watch, which you were the head of for a long time, was created in 1978 as Helsinki Watch to monitor the compliance with the Helsinki Accords specifically, especially in terms of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. When did that change, and what drove that change? 

Kenneth Roth: It began to change really with apartheid in South Africa, which was just such an outrageous system that it was hard to say, "Oh, this is just South Africa doing its own thing the way any sovereign would do." That was the opening for governments to start commenting on each other's practices. It got a further jump forward with the 1973 Pinochet coup, which was then very much led by exiles from Chile who would go to Geneva and talk about the torture, the disappearances, the executions under Pinochet. And that also generated global outrage. So, it was really a handful of situations that broke the ice, where governments suddenly were not just comfortable saying, "Oh, that's what governments do. That's sovereignty. Everybody figures out their own path to respect human rights." But you still heard from many governments, "To criticize them for their human rights record is to interfere with our internal affairs." 

I would say that that didn't really tip until the emergence of a series of human rights organizations that really pushed the envelope, and that, when it was just left up to governments, they still were fairly polite with each other. It was only the emergence of NGOs that were not going to play that game, that were not going to accept the definition of diplomatic as never criticizing a government, just sticking in the realm of generic statements. They really changed that, to the point that, today, you still get this defense. And we can talk about who are the worst perpetrators of this internal affairs defense. The norm at what is now the Human Rights Commission, which was transformed into the Human Rights Council, now the norm is to comment on the behavior of particular governments, but not universally. Even some of the supposed guardians of the Universal Declaration fall short in some very important respects. 

Kathryn Sikkink: Mm-hmm. If I could just get a little context around what Ken just said, first, this mention of the apartheid movement, of course the context there is decolonization. The world has gone from these 50 countries that were at San Francisco to today we have 143. Most of those new countries joined the UN via processes of decolonization. So, they brought new concerns and values, and one of them, of course, was demanding the end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. 

Then, secondly, about the point about Chile. We're talking about the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but we're also talking about the 50th anniversary this year of the Chilean coup. And that was an issue. People say, "Well, why Chile? Why did Chile make such a difference?" It was an issue that the first world, the second world, and this new third world of decolonizing states could all agree on. The Soviet Union was worried about what happened to Salvador Allende and the electoral rocked socialism, but so were countries in Europe, and so very much were countries in the developing world. But once they broke the rules with Chile, they started naming countries by name in the UN Human Rights Commission. They started writing country reports in the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Then you couldn't go backwards again. You created a new set of practices that needed to be extended to all states. 

Kenneth Roth: Actually, if I could pick up on Kathryn's colonization and decolonization point, which is, I think, important because it was also the colonial process that laid behind this disinclination to name offender governments. Because, if you look at the world in 1948, at the time the Universal Declaration was drafted, who didn't want to talk about their human rights record? European governments that had colonies. Also, the U.S. government because of racism in the United States. So, some of the governments that today are seen as the big proponents of human rights were actually not going to get into the business of commenting on each other for fear of how they would come out in that process. It was the evolution of what today is known as the 193 members of the General Assembly. 

Kathryn Sikkink : Oh, I said 143. I'm sorry. 193. Yes, correct. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. 

Kenneth Roth: That includes, on the one hand, many former victims of colonization, but also we have to recognize still many abusive governments. So this idea that you don't comment on each other's human rights offenses still resonates with governments that are deeply into violating their people's human rights. The biggest proponent of maintaining that system today is China. The terminology has varied year to year. Sometimes, they talk about win-win strategies, where everybody promotes their own thing and it’s win-win. We're not going to be critical. We'll talk about cooperative efforts as opposed to pressure.  

The latest terminology from Xi Jinping is civilization. We should recognize that there are different civilizational paths to respect human rights. So there's the Chinese civilization that does its autocratic thing. Now, who defines what that Chinese civilization is? Not the people of China. They have no say. In fact, when the people of Hong Kong said, "We want nothing to do with Beijing's dictatorship," they were shut down. All the protests were ended. The national security law was imposed. But Xi Jinping, sitting there in Beijing, decides what Chinese civilization is and then says, "That's our route. Each government does their own thing. The UN should be promoting, not protecting human rights." That approach is still articulated, but it doesn't really resonate anymore. It's not the norm at all. And it now is de facto accepted that the UN Human Rights Council does regularly comment on governments' internal affairs—if you want to put it that way. 

But there are others who—even surprisingly—really will not criticize another government standing alone for the most part. Even though it's a democracy, but it just is stuck in this old-fashioned view that to each their own when it comes to respecting human rights. So that is still out there, something we still bump up against, but it has been discredited. And the main reason it's been discredited is because of the emergence of NGOs, of human rights organizations that are just not going to settle for this cheap governmental excuse to get away without pressure with human rights violations. 

Ralph Ranalli: Is there any, though, validity in any way to the criticism that the UDHR represents a fundamentally Western viewpoint? Because, Kathryn, you mentioned P.C. Chang from China. According to former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the chair of the drafting committee for the UDHR, one of Chang’s arguments was that there was more than one kind of reality, and that the committee should be studying Confucianism as well as Western moral thought. Now in the human rights discussion there are some people who suggest that perhaps maybe the countries of the Global North are imposing a certain definition of human rights on the Global South, who may not share those same values. What do you think about those arguments?  

Kathryn Sikkink: These debates go back to the debates within the committee that was drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It was a larger committee that included delegates from many countries around the world. But the five key people who were the core, really six key people who were the core drafting committee were, as Ralph just mentioned, Eleanor Roosevelt from the United States, René Cassin from France, and then these three other individuals from countries in the Global South. We said P.C. Chang. There was Charles Malik, who came from Lebanon, and there was Hernan Santa Cruz, who was from Chile. 

Each of them brought different perspectives. P.C. Chang did bring perspectives from the Confucian tradition into the discussion. Hernan Santa Cruz was really the person who insisted that both economic, social, and cultural rights and civil and political rights both be included in the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. And he persuaded the main staff person, John Humphrey, who was from Canada and who was a social democrat or a democratic socialist, to make sure that that happened. So already there was a wide participation.  

Now, of course, many, many countries, especially in Africa, were not yet decolonized. And so when they came into the system, they wanted to write new conventions. The second convention that was written, human rights convention that was entered into force after the genocide convention, was the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, what's called CERD. That's because these newly decolonized African countries or Caribbean countries were very worried about racial discrimination. They fast-forwarded to get that treaty to enter into effect before the two big covenants, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. So it shows that, when countries in the Global South were united around a theme, like racial discrimination, they really could put that at the center of the debate. 

Kenneth Roth: Yeah. Let me maybe add to what Kathryn said. Kathryn described, I think, in drafting terms why the Universal Declaration really is universal. Let me look at this a bit more in operational terms, because I think one of the great legacies of the Declaration is that it did give rise to this global movement. Today, really in every country, you've got activists and groups that are trying to promote human rights. Even in places where it's oppressive for them to exist, they exist in exile. So, if you just look at this body of organizations that has emerged from the declaration, it underscores universality. That's not a doctrinal point, it's an operational point, it's a point of fact.  

Now, to put this another way, when I was at Human Rights Watch, I did a lot of traveling. It was part of the job, and I would be all over the world. I never met somebody who wanted to be executed. I never met somebody who wanted to be tortured or arbitrarily imprisoned, or discriminated against, or deprived of housing or education or healthcare. If you look at it in terms of what do people want, they want these things. So it's easy for some autocratic government to say, "Oh, no, we just want a dictator. I'm going to have all the solutions here." But, in fact, people want these rights. And that is the great refutation of those who claim that these are somehow Western in positions.  

Now, I think it's worth noting the three areas that are most contested, where you tend to hear this Western position point most frequently, have to do with women's rights, with the rights of sexual minorities, and with religious freedom. Again, the best refutation is to look at the people of the country. Take a place like Saudi Arabia. Now, some women may be perfectly happy subordinating themselves to their husbands—okay, that's their choice. But clearly, many Saudi women want a modern life. They want to be able to drive, they want to be able to travel without some male's permission. They want just basic freedoms. And it's not the West telling them to do that. Nobody's whispering in their ear and say, "Do this, do that." This is what they want. And the imposition is not a Western imposition. The imposition is by these conservative, retrograde leaders who want to maintain their patriarchal system.  

You can say the same thing about LGBT rights, where nobody's telling people to be gay. That's who they are. It's the local conservative hierarchy that is trying to prevent them from being who they are, from leading their lives. So, I find that this argument that it's the Western imposition a facile, easy defense by governments that are trying to avoid scrutiny, but it just doesn't match up with reality. These rights are not imposed, these rights are what people universally want. 

Kathryn Sikkink: One additional piece of evidence for that is, of course, the Universal Declaration got translated into all of these treaties, and then the treaties got ratified by many, many countries. So, the oddest thing is sometimes you have countries claiming that there's imposition, but then you say, "Well, but you ratified this treaty."  

People have done research. Beth Simmons and others have done research on this. There's really very little evidence that diplomats twisted the arms of countries in order to ratify human rights treaties. Now, there's some evidence that countries thought it was cheap talk. They thought they could ratify the treaties and there would be no costs. That was the case. General Pinochet himself and his inner circle ratified the Convention Against Torture, and that was the treaty that ended up getting him arrested in London. But the second point is that countries ratify, they voluntarily accept the obligations under these human rights treaties. 

Ralph Ranalli: What do you see as the major impediments to the advancement of this notion of universal human rights? Is it authoritarian nationalism? Is it just human tribalism? Is it neoliberal capitalism or economic Darwinism? What are the major roadblocks to a world where this notion of universal human rights advances even further? Ken, do you want to start with this one? 

Kenneth Roth: I guess I'll take that easy question on. 

Kathryn Sikkink: I'll start if you want me to. 

Kenneth Roth: Whatever. Either way. Go ahead. Sure, Kathryn, go ahead. 

Kathryn Sikkink: I would say first is, yeah, part of it is authoritarianism. We know that there's a direct correlation between authoritarian governments and bad human rights practices. And we know that authoritarian governments repress human rights because they want to stay in power. So they have a direct interest, they want to stay in power, they want to accumulate money, and they use repression as a tool to stay in power. So, yes, one big barrier in the world to human rights is that we have a lot of authoritarian governments and that the trend towards democratization has stalled. There was the third wave of democracy, and that brought a bunch of new countries into having better human rights practices, but that has now stalled. Unless we have a fourth wave of democracy, unless we restart the turn to democracy, human rights will not improve in the world, will not significantly improve in the world. That's the first thing I was saying.  

The second thing I was saying, it's not capitalism per se, because some of the worst human rights violations have occurred in non-capitalist societies. The Great Leap Forward in China, the terrible purges in the Soviet Union. Human rights violations have occurred in capitalist and non-capitalist societies. Now, we could say that some of the excesses, I would say some of the excesses of hyper-globalization in recent years have exacerbated some of the economic and social rights. But I would not say that capitalism per se is at the root of human rights violations. 

Kenneth Roth: Let me pick up with, first, I agree very much with what Kathryn said is the first cause. Autocrats, by definition, view human rights as a pain in the ass. They're an impediment to staying in power, and so they violate human rights to maintain all the great benefits of being in power, often corruption or just the prestige of it. So that's always going to be an obstacle, and there always needs pressure on these autocrats to change the calculation that leads it to be seen as beneficial to violate human rights. 

Second, I would put in terms of maybe the populist threat, which is often combined with autocrats, but is, I think, best understood analytically as distinct. What the populists typically do is to demonize some unpopular minority and therefore make the deprivation of their rights popular among... and often they're a religious majority in the country. And that challenges the basic idea of community that lies at the heart of human rights. If you think of why I should respect your human rights, it's because we're in the community and I recognize that, if they come from your rights today, they'll come from my rights tomorrow. That's the classic Kantian understanding of it. But, if you're able to define a community in exclusionary terms and to treat these immigrants, these Muslims, or these gays as somehow outside the community, it becomes easier to violate their rights because this kind of reciprocity that is often at the basis of respect for human rights is lost. So, I think that there has been a real determination on the part of populist leaders to narrow the national community, and that endangers human rights. 

Then the final thing I would note is that human rights need defense. If we go back to the origins of the Universal Declaration, with just each government to do their own thing, we're going to have an impoverished world when it comes to human rights. So you need not only non-governmental human rights groups but also governments themselves and UN officials and the like to be standing up for human rights consistently. When some of the major proponents of human rights have real double standards in the willingness to stand for human rights, it undermines the enterprise. It leaves the entire effort to defend human rights open to charges of hypocrisy.  

Clearly, the U.S. government is guilty of this. It's actively defending Israel to the point where it's bombarding Palestinian civilians in Gaza, but it tries to rally people to stand up for rights of Ukrainians when Russia bombards civilians there. That double standard doesn't work very well. People see through it.  

So, there's a need for much work in defensive human rights. Even some of the top UN officials. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, just gave his big Universal Declaration of Human Rights 75th anniversary speech, ran through a bunch of countries, and somehow didn't get around to China, which in my view is the biggest global threat to human rights today. This is an utter abdication of his responsibility. It is utter cowardice. I don't know what he's thinking. This is not just one speech or a mistake. He's been in office for well over a year and in this time has never condemned Beijing for the crimes against humanity, the mass persecution and detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. This is, in many ways, the most outrageous offense he faces, and he says nothing. Whether this is cowardice or some naive conception of what his quiet diplomacy will secure, it is nothing, I have no idea, but it is utterly shameful and it undermines this effort to defend human rights. 

Ralph Ranalli: Can we talk for a bit about what I see as the very complicated relationship between religion and human rights? On the one hand, I think it's fair to say that certain religious tenants, particularly universal ones, like the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—have deeply influenced the notion universal human rights. But then, if you look at some of the worst and most intractable conflicts in the world, a lot of them have a religious component to them. Jews and Muslims in Israel and Palestine, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. And that's not even to mention the suffering imposed on religious minorities around the world.  

And history has shown that there are invariably people in every faith who are going to say, "My god tells me that I have a right to take your land, or to deny you the right to be a citizen, or to keep certain rights and freedoms for myself and my group while denying them to you." But on the other hand, the UDHR says, "No. Human rights are universal and indivisible no matter what the circumstances are." Is religion in at least some ways antithetical to universal human rights? How do you solve for religion in the human rights equation? 

Kathryn Sikkink: First, I would begin by just going back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and say one of the most controversial issues in those debates was not that one has a right to have a religion but that one has a right to change their religion. That language went in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it led to some of the early abstentions or votes against the Universal Declaration. Then, later, there was an attempt right around the time we got the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, the CERD treaty, there was attempt to get a treaty on religious freedom, protecting religious freedom, and that treaty failed. It's one example of a human rights treaty that could not get through. So, it's a very contentious issue. 

Now, I would say not say that religion is a basis for human rights violations because there's also many examples of religious communities that were deeply involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. Back when I was a young human rights activist, when I first met Ken, and he knows the story well, the early human rights people were very involved with religious communities, missionaries, the World Council of Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference. They were committed to promoting human rights. So I want to go back to something Ken said earlier. The problem is not religion per se, the problem is dehumanization. Religious groups, when they dehumanize other religious groups, are a huge problem for human rights. But you don't have to be religious to dehumanize. Some of these populists Ken was talking about are not religious, but they are dehumanizing others. And this dehumanization, this exclusion of people, Ken used this word, you're excluding people from the realm of obligation. You think, "They're not worthy of being protected." That's the root, not religion, in my mind. 

Kenneth Roth: Let me just add to that. First off, Ralph, part of what you're describing as religious problems, they could be called ethnic problems as well. Israel-Palestine isn't really about religion. It's about two ethnic groups that are competing over the same land. It's not as if there's religious conviction here for the most part. There are parts on both sides who say, "Oh, yeah, this is our land. God said so." But, for the most part, it's an ethnic national conflict. And that is often true of things that are described in religious terms. But I think, as Kathryn said, religion often is an ally human rights because, if religion is trying to teach respect for the individual and a certain public morality, that often is quite compatible with human rights.  

But there are certain views of religion which go beyond saying, "Everybody can pray to their own god. Everybody is entitled to this basic religious freedom," to saying, "I get to impose my religious views on other people." That's where, as Kathryn was describing, the contested right to convert comes in. Why should I care if you change your religion? What does it have to do with me? I still have my freedom of religion, but some people want to impose their views than others. And this is also translated into restrictions on women, into restrictions on LBGT people, into a way of not just ordering one's own private beliefs but using self-declared religious beliefs and opposing those on others. So, this just gives the veneer of legitimacy to what is really no different from what autocrats do. It's an effort to dictate the way their society would operate without input from the people.  

Ralph Ranalli: We're at 75 years for the UDHR. What do you think would be the most appropriate way to celebrate it in terms of proposing policies—either national or international—that advance universal human rights? So I'd like your recommendations here for policies that would get us closer to this world where there's less conflict and more respect for rights that emerged as the UDHR vision 75 years ago. What would you both recommend?  

Kathryn Sikkink: Some of these things have already come up, but I want to start with one that sounds facile, maybe. But I truly believe in human rights education. I think one of the reasons the Universal Declaration for Human Rights has been so important is it's a wonderful tool for human rights education. I think it's important to have people study it, but also to teach them about its origins. Because then, if you talk about all the countries, all the people involved in creating it, that helps people understand that this belongs to all of us and that it came from many communities. 

Second, things we've already talked about, but let's put them in policy terms. We've already said that these authoritarian countries and leaders are a big problem for human rights. I've already said but I want to underscore here that we need to take up again this campaign for democracy. There was a time—and Ken and I both remember this—where there were human rights people to one side and democracy proponents to the other side during the Reagan administration. And I feel like, if we haven't put that behind us, we need to completely put that behind us. Promoting democracy helps promote human rights, and promoting human rights helps promote democracy. No one thinks democracy only means holding elections, right? There's a lot of authoritarians or very imperfect democracies out there that have elections but aren't truly democratic. So that's number one, I would say. It's very important to get democracy promotion that really geared up again. 

As a political scientist, I can tell you the single biggest factor that correlates with human rights violations is war. In particular, these big civil wars. So, once again, all the work that can be done to end wars. Then, of course, we get in a difficult situation, and that's that human rights were founded right after World War II, which was one of those necessary wars for human rights. So, sometimes, I think in relatively rare situations, people have to be willing to stand up and fight, including fight wars, to protect human rights. I categorize the Russia-Ukraine War in that way. It's my personal way, but I believe that what's going on in Israel-Palestine today, the only way that we can start protecting human rights is to have an end to that war as soon as possible. Again, that's my position. So I'll pass it on to Ken because I know he has lots of good suggestions. 

Ralph Ranalli: Ken, if you had your hands on the levers of policy power for one day, what would you accomplish? 

Kenneth Roth: Let me answer this in terms of, sure, we are celebrating the UDHR. Let me talk about appropriate and inappropriate celebrations as a way of trying to address this policy question. What I view as an inappropriate celebration is conversations which stay at the level of platitudes and never discuss governance. As if we just have these standards floating around in the air and we're not going to bother applying them. And that is such a disservice to what the UDHR has become. It may be true to the initial limited intent of the document, but it stands for so much more now.  

So I think that the way we celebrate this, we should, one, recognize the central role of non-government groups. They should be at those celebrations, and they should be protected. And it shouldn't just be governments clinking glasses of champagne with each other, but they should be rededicating themselves to protecting NGOs as essential for protecting human rights. The celebration should talk about violations and name names because that, in my view, is true to the real spirit of what the declaration has become, even if it wasn't what it was intended at first. And that's its strength. If you can't put pressure on particular governments, what's the point of this document? It's just an aspirational thing that sits there and is violated. 

Then I also think that, because of the importance of being universal, of not having double standards, this is an opportunity for governments that say they promote humanity as part of their foreign policy to dedicate themselves to doing so without double standards, and to really reexamine where they stand and stop defending the abuses of their allies and criticizing the abuses of their adversaries. That doesn't work very well; people see through that. So, I hope that we recognize that the universality is not simply a description of what people around the world want, but it also should be a description of what governments do in defense of the rights details in the Declaration. 

Ralph Ranalli: Great. This was a fascinating and informative conversation, and I'd really like to thank you both for being here. 

Kenneth Roth: Thank you for thinking of us. 

Kathryn Sikkink:  Yeah. It's our great pleasure to be here. 

Outro (Ralph Ranalli): Thanks for listening. If you want to read more about the transformational impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has compiled a collection of 90 short essays by scholars and experts at the Kennedy School and around Harvard. To read them online, please visit the Carr Center at carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu or our PolicyCast website at hks.harvard.edu/policycast. And if you want to keep hearing more about policy solutions to big world problems, please subscribe to PolicyCast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcasting app so you don’t miss any of our upcoming episodes. And until next time, from all of us here at the Kennedy School, remember to speak bravely, and listen generously. 

More from PolicyCast

The rising tide no one’s talking about—finding homes for millions of climate crisis migrants, the united states pays reparations every day—just not to black america, worldwide outrage over atrocities in ukraine is enabling a new era of international justice.

• Infographics
• Inspired Source
• Visions of Human Rights
• Our Spotlights
• British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) Guest Blog
• Our funders
• How to pitch to us
• Contact EachOther
• Support Everyone, Support EachOther

What we write about

• Discrimination
• Environment
• Immigration
• Institutions
• Young People
• Black Lives Matter
• Fighting Hate with Rights
• Hostile Environment
• Reforming the Gender Recognition Act
• School Exclusions
• Sex Workers Rights
• The History Of Rights – HIV And AIDs In The UK
• Uncovering Period Poverty
• Why the Human Rights Act is crucial for the UK
• Young People and Mental Health

More than news

• EachOther's Comics
• EachOther's Videos

Explore EachOther

• About EachOther
• Commission EachOther
• Pitch to EachOther
• Our social media house rules

• Corrections & Complaints
• Privacy Policy
• Using Our Content

6 Human Rights Speeches That Changed The World

Words are powerful things. Put in the hands of skilful orators they have the ability to inspire, heal and rally vast swathes of people. And what could be more worth rallying for than the inherent dignity and equal rights of ‘ all members of the human family’ (AKA, our human rights) ? 

These six speakers advocate for equality, freedom, and dignity. But above all, what connects them is their belief in the power of free speech, and that their own voice can make a difference – and they did.

• Hundreds of inspirational human rights quotes

1. Eleanor Roosevelt, The Struggle for Human Rights, 1948

Let’s start off with the first lady of human rights – Eleanor Roosevelt with her famous 1948 speech ‘The Struggle for Human Rights’

We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

Check her out in action here:

2. Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream, 1963

Moving on to one of the most recognisable speeches of the 20 th Century – Martin Luther King Jnr in 1963 ‘I Have A Dream.’

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

His delivery brings his words off the page:

3. Emmeline Pankhurst, Freedom or Death, 1913

Great speeches have a habit of connecting to times of strife. The struggle for women’s suffrage is littered with powerful speeches denouncing inequality – here is one of the most famous from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, ‘Freedom or Death,’

Human life for us is sacred, but we say if any life is to be sacrificed it shall be ours; we won’t do it ourselves, but we will put the enemy in the position where they will have to choose between giving us freedom or giving us death.

If you want to listen to it, check out this reading of it:

4. Harold Macmillan, The Wind of Change, 1960

Sometimes the location of a speech underlines its impact. Here Harold Macmillan is addressing the South African Parliament about racial discrimination and slavery in his 1960 ‘The Wind of Change’ speech.

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.

Check out Harold in full flow here:

5. Nelson Mandela, I Am Prepared To Die, 1964

Four years later in 1964 in the same country, Nelson Mandela was on trial on charges of sabotage and made the following speech from the dock:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Here is Mr Mandela using the court room as his megaphone:

6. Elie Wiesel, The Perils of Indifference

We’ll end with a personal favourite. Here is Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor addressing President Clinton in 1999 talking about ‘The Perils of Indifference.’

Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.

Watch the full 20 minutes here:

These are just a small selection of powerful speeches, which speeches would you put in your top ten?

• Check out our guest post on ‘Free Speech and Why it Matters’ 
• For more on freedom of expression and why it matters, read our Explainer here. 
• To read about why we should continue to fight for our freedoms, read RightsInfo’s director’s opinion post, ‘ Evil Progresses Cunningly ‘. 

Harold Macmillan image ©  Chetham’s Library , and Wikimedia used under Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic Licence.

About the author.

Anna Dannreuther is a barrister at Field Court Chambers practising in public, employment, and commercial law. She is a trans ally and has worked extensively on human rights issues, including at the European Court of Human Rights and with NGO partners.

Latest News

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Search the United Nations

27 february 2023, un secretary-general's remarks to the 52nd session of the human rights council, antónio guterres.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago. The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always. The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long. But all human life is there. […] As we celebrate the impact of the [Declaration], our worst enemy is complacency. We must continue to make human rights real in the lives of people everywhere.

[Bilingual, as delivered; scroll further down for all-French and all-English]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago.  

The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always.

The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long.

But all human life is there.  

The Universal Declaration sets out the rights to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to freedom of expression; to seek asylum; to work, to healthcare and education, and more.   

But as we mark its 75th anniversary, the Universal Declaration is under assault from all sides.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the most massive violations of human rights we are living today.

It has unleashed widespread death, destruction and displacement.

Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure have caused many casualties and terrible suffering.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented dozens of cases of conflict-related sexual violence against men, women and girls.

And serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against prisoners of war – and hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions of civilians – were also documented.

Unfortunately, the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which should be our common blueprint, is too often misused and abused.

It is exploited for political gain; and it is ignored – often by the very same people.

Some governments chip away at it. Others use a wrecking ball.

And today’s public disregard and private disdain for human rights are a wake-up call.

This is a moment to stand on the right side of history.

A moment to stand up for the human rights of everyone, everywhere.

We must revitalize the Universal Declaration and ensure its full implementation to face the new challenges of today and tomorrow.

My Call to Action for Human Rights, launched three years ago in this chamber, is the blueprint.

Human rights are not a luxury that can be left until we find a solution to the world’s other problems.

They are the solution to many of the world’s other problems.

From the climate emergency to the misuse of technology, the answers to today’s crises are found in human rights.

Human rights are innate to being human.

The Hindu Vedas, the Ancient Chinese Analects of Confucius, the Bible and the Koran all set out very similar duties and rights.

The Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a cornerstone of the French Revolution in 1789, set out rights to liberty, property, to freedom of speech, the press and religion.

But these rights extended exclusively to men who were citizens – not to women, slaves, or minorities. When a French women’s rights activist published a parody of the men-only revolution, she was tried and executed for treason.

Less than ninety years [later], in 1875, my maternal grandfather was born.

He was an important role model and an inspiration throughout my life --a man who told me so much about his experiences that they became part of my own memories.

When he was born, the colonial project, based on massive human rights violations, was flourishing across Africa, Asia and the Americas. 

Slavery – the utter denial of human rights – had recently been abolished in the United States – but would continue elsewhere and in other forms for many years.

Women everywhere were subjugated by men.

Although my grandfather’s life began in an era of human rights horrors, we saw incredible progress.

Slavery was formally abolished; most colonies won independence; women secured the right to vote. There was widespread recognition of civil and political rights, including to free speech and association.

At the start of the twentieth century, the harmful impact of industrialization brought attention to social and economic rights.  

Civil society and the Trade Union movement led the fight for the rights to education, healthcare, social security and decent working conditions for everybody.

Half a century later, from the carnage of two world wars and the appalling crimes of the Holocaust, a transformative moment saw the birth of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration sets out the rights inherent to all people for all time – an unparalleled achievement.

And thanks to the efforts of the Indian women’s rights activist, Hansa Mehta, the equal rights of women and men were explicit from the start: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

My grandfather’s generation benefited from a century of progress on human rights that went hand-in-hand with remarkable leaps in human development.

In 1900, some 80 percent of people around the world lived in poverty. That figure had fallen to less than 10 percent by 2015.

The average person lived 32 years. Today, it’s more than 70.

Seven out of every ten people were illiterate. Now it’s less than two.

Instead of continuing this progress, we have now gone into reverse.

Extreme poverty and hunger are rising for the first time in decades.

Nearly half of the world’s population, 3.5 billion people, live in climate hotspots. These vast areas are fast becoming human rights disaster zones where floods, droughts and storms mean people are 15 times more likely to die of climate impacts. 

A record one hundred million people have been forced to flee by violence, conflict and human rights violations.

Just yesterday, yet another horrific shipwreck in the Mediterranean claimed the lives of scores of people seeking a better future for themselves and their children.

Refugee and migrant rights are human rights.

They must be respected without discrimination.

While criminal gangs control migration routes, people will continue to perish. We need safe, orderly, legal routes for migrants and refugees.

And we must do everything possible to prevent the loss of life by providing search and rescue and medical care – as a humanitarian imperative, and as a moral and legal obligation.

Every day brings new evidence of human rights violations, from summary executions and torture to enforced disappearance and sexual violence.    

Around the world, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, the persecution of Christians, racism and white supremacist ideology are on the march. 

Religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+, and other minority communities are targeted for harassment and hatred.

Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are denied; and gender-based discrimination and violence are rampant.

Freedom of expression is in freefall and the number of media workers killed around the world last year rose by a horrific 50 percent.

Inequalities of all kinds are dividing societies ever more deeply.

Social cohesion and trust are draining away through the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots.

The pandemic left us with a pandemic of abuses of civil and political rights.

And it laid bare routine violations of economic and social rights, including the exploitation of women’s unpaid care work. 

Looking forward gives rise to even greater alarm. 

Unless humanity kicks its addiction to fossil fuels now, critical climate tipping points will crush the human rights of generations to come. 

The misuse of new technologies could threaten human rights on a scale we can’t even imagine. 

Future generations could inherit a world with no protection from misinformation, disinformation and lies. 

A divided world of winner takes all.

We must heed the lessons of history.

As flashpoints multiply and deadly new risks loom, we must fight for our rights. 

We must protect and promote the global consensus around the Universal Declaration and move forward into a new era of human rights for all.  

This requires both a laser focus on the rights we have already recognized – and a quantum leap towards a new generation of rights.

The report on Our Common Agenda sets out a vision for the future with people and their rights at the centre.

A new social contract to rebuild trust and social cohesion.

A New Global Deal to heal divisions and give developing countries a greater voice in decision-making. 

And a New Agenda for Peace, based on a holistic vision of the peace continuum from prevention to mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.

The Call to Action for Human Rights sets out seven areas for urgent attention: rights at the core of sustainable development; rights in times of crisis; gender equality; civic space; future generations; collective action; and new frontiers.

We at the United Nations are changing the way we work, recognizing that human rights are central to everything we do.

We are prioritizing the connections between human rights and the prevention of conflicts and crises of all kinds.

In July this year, the High Commissioner and I will launch a new Agenda for Protection.

This important initiative will seek to strengthen support from across the United Nations system to Member States to protect people and their rights, both in times of peace and in times of crisis and conflict.

J’ai eu le privilège de travailler avec trois Hauts-Commissaires : Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein de Jordanie, Michelle Bachelet du Chili, et à présent Volker Türk d’Autriche.

Tous sont des leaders et défenseurs des droits humains remarquables.

Ils ont accompli les missions confiées par ce Conseil, et ont également publié de leur propre chef plus de 170 rapports nationaux et thématiques importants au cours de ces dix dernières années.

Ces rapports portent notamment sur les changements climatiques au Sahel, les migrations en Europe et dans les Amériques, et les préoccupations en matière de droits humains dans différents contextes, notamment en Afghanistan, au Chili, en Éthiopie, au Guatemala, en Libye, au Sahel, en Ukraine et au Xinjiang… pour n’en citer que quelques-uns.

Ce Conseil, vos différents mécanismes, y compris l’Examen périodique universel, les Procédures spéciales et les Organes de suivi des traités, ainsi que le Haut-Commissariat, sont essentiels pour créer une dynamique de progrès.

Cette institution soutient les efforts des défenseurs et défenseuses des droits humains qui, avec courage, risquent la persécution, la détention et même la mort dans l’accomplissement de leur travail vital.

Vos missions d’établissement des faits, vos commissions d’enquête et vos experts indépendants sont essentiels aux principes de justice et de responsabilité.

La Cour Internationale de Justice occupe un rôle unique en matière de justice et de responsabilité internationales.

La Cour Pénale Internationale est l’institution centrale du système de justice pénale internationale; elle incarne la vocation de placer les auteurs des crimes les plus graves face à leurs responsabilités.

Je me réjouis des progrès accomplis afin que les violations des droits humains soient poursuivies aux niveaux national et régional – y compris les violations commises par le secteur privé.

Les actions en justice à l’encontre des entreprises qui détruisent le climat constituent une avancée importante.

Les producteurs de combustibles fossiles et leurs financiers doivent comprendre une vérité élémentaire : la poursuite de méga-profits, alors que tant de personnes perdent leur vie et leurs droits, aujourd’hui et à l’avenir, est totalement inacceptable.

Alors que nous célébrons l’impact de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, notre pire ennemi est la complaisance.

Car en matière de droits humains, l’histoire reste à écrire.

Nous devons continuer à faire des droits humains une réalité dans la vie des populations du monde entier.

Nous devons nous inspirer des mouvements de libération et de protestation qui ont accompli d’énormes avancées au cours du siècle dernier – l’abolition de l’esclavage, la décolonisation, le suffrage universel, le mouvement féministe et la fin de l’apartheid.

La société civile, les défenseurs des droits humains, les personnes en situation de handicap, les femmes, les filles et les jeunes du monde entier sont déjà dans la rue, et exigent la protection de tous les droits humains, pour toutes et pour tous.

Je suis à leurs côtés. Nous devons tous être à leurs côtés.

Et je vous remercie.

************************************

[All-French version]

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme a été adoptée il y a 75 ans.

Dans ce texte ont été énoncés, pour la première fois, des droits qui s’appliquent à tous les êtres humains, partout et en tout temps.

Sa version anglaise, qui est le document le plus traduit au monde, ne compte que 1 300 mots – et pourtant, tout est dit de l’expérience humaine.

La Déclaration universelle énonce le droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sûreté ; le droit à l’égalité devant la loi ; le droit à la liberté d’expression ; le droit de chercher asile ; le droit au travail, à la santé, à l’éducation, et bien d’autres droits encore.

Or, alors que nous célébrons son soixante-quinzième anniversaire, la Déclaration est attaquée de toutes parts.

L'invasion russe de l'Ukraine a déclenché les violations les plus massives des droits de l'homme que nous vivons aujourd'hui.

Elle a provoqué la mort, la destruction et des déplacements à grande échelle.

Les attaques contre les populations et les infrastructures civiles ont fait de nombreuses victimes et causé d’indicibles souffrances.

Le Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme a recensé des dizaines de cas de violences sexuelles liées au conflit commises contre des hommes, des femmes et des filles.

De graves violations du droit international humanitaire et du droit international des droits humains à l’égard de prisonniers de guerre, et des centaines de cas de disparitions forcées et de détentions arbitraires de civils, ont également été documentés.

Malheureusement, la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, qui devrait être notre modèle commun, est trop souvent utilisée à mauvais escient et de manière abusive.

Elle est dédaignée, souvent par ceux-là mêmes qui l’exploitent à des fins politiques.

Certains gouvernements en rognent les fondations, d’autres les torpillent.

Les droits humains font aujourd’hui l’objet d’un mépris en public et d’un dédain en privé qui doivent nous faire réagir.

Nous devons nous placer du bon côté de l’histoire.

Nous devons défendre les droits humains de tous et de toutes, partout.

Il nous faut donner un nouveau souffle à la Déclaration universelle et veiller à ce qu’elle soit pleinement appliquée pour qu’elle nous permette de faire face aux défis d’aujourd’hui et de demain.

Il y a trois ans, j’ai lancé ici même mon appel à l’action en faveur des droits humains, qui est notre fil directeur.

Les droits humains n’ont rien d’un luxe dont nous puissions nous passer, le temps de trouver une solution aux autres problèmes du monde.

Ils sont la solution à de nombreux problèmes du monde.

Aux crises actuelles, de l’urgence climatique à l’utilisation néfaste des nouvelles technologies, les droits humains apportent la réponse.

Les droits humains sont inhérents à l’existence humaine.

Le Véda hindou, Confucius dans ses Analectes, la Bible, le Coran — tous postulent des droits et des devoirs très similaires.

La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, pierre angulaire de la Révolution française de 1789, énonçait les droits à la liberté et à la propriété ainsi que la liberté d’expression, la liberté de presse et la liberté de religion.

Mais ces droits bénéficiaient exclusivement aux hommes qui étaient citoyens – pas aux femmes, ni aux esclaves, ni aux minorités. La défenseuse française des droits des femmes qui avait osé publier un pastiche de cette déclaration réservée aux hommes a été jugée pour trahison et exécutée.

Moins de quatre-vingt-dix ans plus tard, en 1875, naissait mon grand-père maternel.

Il a été un modèle important et une source d’inspiration tout au long de ma vie – un homme qui m’a tant conté ses expériences qu’elles font désormais partie intégrante de mes propres souvenirs.

A sa naissance, le projet colonial, édifié sur des violations massives des droits humains, était alors en plein essor en Afrique, en Asie et dans les Amériques.

L’esclavage, qui est le déni pur et simple des droits humains, avait récemment été aboli aux États-Unis mais il subsistait, ailleurs et sous d’autres formes, et a perduré pendant de nombreuses années.

Partout, les femmes étaient sous le joug des hommes.

Si mon grand-père a grandi dans une époque marquée par des horreurs du point de vue des droits humains, il a, de son vivant, été le témoin d’extraordinaires progrès :

L’abolition officielle de l’esclavage, l’accession à l’indépendance de la plupart des colonies, l’obtention du droit de vote par les femmes, et la reconnaissance générale des droits civils et politiques, notamment de la liberté d’expression et d’association.

Au début du vingtième siècle, les conséquences néfastes de l’industrialisation ont mis en relief l’importance des droits sociaux et économiques. Les organisations de la société civile et les mouvements syndicaux ont été les fers de lance de la lutte pour le droit à l’éducation, à la santé, à la sécurité sociale et à des conditions de travail décentes pour tous.

Un demi-siècle plus tard, des cendres d’un monde ravagé par les hécatombes de deux guerres mondiales et les effroyables crimes de la Shoah naissaient les signes d’un renouveau : l’Organisation des Nations Unies et la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme.

La Déclaration universelle énonce les droits qui sont inhérents à tous les êtres humains, en tout temps : c’est une réalisation sans précédent.

Et grâce aux efforts de la défenseuse indienne des droits des femmes Hansa Mehta, l’égalité en droits des femmes et des hommes a été explicitement établie, dès le départ : « Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits ».

La génération de mon grand-père a connu un siècle de progrès en matière de droits humains, qui sont allés de pair avec des avancées remarquables dans le domaine du développement humain.

En 1900, plus de 80 % des personnes dans le monde vivaient dans la pauvreté. Elles étaient moins de 10 % en 2015.

En moyenne, l’espérance de vie était de 32 ans. Elle dépasse aujourd’hui les 70 ans.

Sept personnes sur dix étaient analphabètes. A présent, c'est moins de deux.

Mesdames et Messieurs, chers amis,

Au lieu de poursuivre cette progression, nous avons fait marche arrière.

L’extrême pauvreté et la faim augmentent, pour la première fois depuis des décennies.

Près de la moitié de la population mondiale, soit 3,5 milliards de personnes, vit dans des zones en danger climatique. Ces vastes zones sont en passe de devenir des zones sinistrées du point de vue des droits humains, où les inondations, les sécheresses et les tempêtes font que le risque de mourir des effets des changements climatiques est 15 fois plus élevé qu’ailleurs.

Cent millions de personnes – un chiffre record – ont été contraintes de fuir les violences, les conflits et les violations de leurs droits humains.

Hier encore, un énième terrible naufrage en Méditerranée a coûté la vie à de nombreuses personnes qui étaient en quête d'un avenir meilleur pour elles-mêmes et pour leurs enfants.

Les droits des réfugiés et des migrants sont des droits humains. Ils doivent être respectés sans discrimination.

Tant que des bandes criminelles contrôleront les routes migratoires, des personnes continueront à périr. Nous avons besoin de routes sûres, ordonnées et légales pour les migrants et les réfugiés.

Et nous devons faire tout notre possible pour prévenir les pertes de vies humaines en fournissant des services de recherche et de sauvetage et des soins médicaux – c'est un impératif humanitaire, et une obligation morale et juridique.

En Ukraine et ailleurs, chaque jour apporte de nouvelles preuves que des violations des droits humains – exécutions sommaires, tortures, disparitions forcées ou violences sexuelles – sont commises.

Partout dans le monde, l’antisémitisme, le sectarisme antimusulman, la persécution des chrétiens, le racisme et l’idéologie suprémaciste blanche sont en marche.

Les minorités religieuses, linguistiques et ethniques, la communauté LGBTQI+ et les autres communautés minoritaires sont la cible d’actes de harcèlement et de haine.

Les droits sexuels et procréatifs des femmes sont bafoués ; la discrimination et la violence fondées sur le genre sont monnaie courante.

La liberté d’expression est en faillite et le nombre de professionnels des médias tués dans le monde l’année dernière a augmenté de 50 % – un chiffre épouvantable.

Les inégalités de toutes sortes créent des clivages de plus en plus profonds dans les sociétés.

La cohésion sociale et la confiance s’abîment dans le fossé béant entre nantis et démunis.

La pandémie s’est soldée par une pandémie d’atteintes aux droits civils et politiques, et a mis à nu les violations systématiques des droits économiques et sociaux, notamment l’exploitation du travail accompli par les femmes dans les soins non rémunérés.

L’avenir suscite des inquiétudes encore plus grandes.

Si l’humanité ne se libère pas, dès à présent, de sa dépendance aux combustibles fossiles, les points de basculement climatiques critiques écraseront les droits humains des générations futures.

L’utilisation abusive des nouvelles technologies pourrait menacer les droits humains dans des proportions inimaginables.

Les générations futures pourraient hériter d’un monde dénué de protection contre la mésinformation, la désinformation et les mensonges.

D’un monde divisé où le gagnant rafle toute la mise.

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Nous devons tirer les leçons que nous enseigne l’histoire.

Alors que les points chauds se multiplient sur Terre et que de nouveaux dangers mortels se profilent à l’horizon, nous devons nous battre pour nos droits.

Nous devons protéger et promouvoir le consensus mondial autour de la Déclaration universelle, et avancer vers une nouvelle ère : celle des droits humains pour toutes et tous.

Pour ce faire, nous devons concentrer notre action sur les droits que nous avons déjà reconnus mais aussi – dans un prodigieux bond en avant – promouvoir une nouvelle génération de droits.

Le rapport intitulé « Notre Programme commun » présente une vision de l’avenir centrée sur les personnes et leurs droits. Un nouveau contrat social permettant de rebâtir la confiance et la cohésion sociale.

Un nouveau Pacte mondial permettant de surmonter les divisions et de mieux faire entendre la voix des pays en développement dans la prise de décisions.

Et un Nouvel Agenda pour la paix, fondé sur une vision intégrée du continuum de la paix – de la prévention à la médiation, en passant par le maintien et la consolidation de la paix.

L’appel à l’action en faveur des droits humains énonce sept domaines où nous devons travailler d’urgence : les droits au cœur du développement durable, les droits en période de crise, l’égalité des genres, l’espace civique, les générations futures, l’action collective, et de nouveaux possibles.

À l’Organisation des Nations Unies, nous modifions notre manière de travailler, conscients que les droits humains sont au cœur de tout ce que nous entreprenons.

Nous accordons la priorité à la corrélation entre droits humains et prévention des conflits et des crises de toutes sortes.

En juillet de cette année, le Haut-Commissaire et moi-même lancerons un nouvel Agenda pour la protection.

Cette initiative importante visera à renforcer le soutien apporté par le système des Nations Unies aux États Membres pour protéger les personnes et leurs droits, en temps de paix autant qu’en période de crise et de conflit.

Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs,

J’ai eu le privilège de travailler avec trois Hauts-Commissaires : Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein de Jordanie, Michelle Bachelet du Chili, et à présent Volker Türk d’Autriche. Tous sont des leaders et défenseurs des droits humains remarquables.

Ils ont accompli les missions confiées par ce Conseil, et ont également publié de leur propre chef plus de 170 rapports nationaux et thématiques importants au cours de ces six dernières années.

La Cour Pénale Internationale est l’institution centrale du système de justice pénale internationale ; elle incarne la vocation de placer les auteurs des crimes les plus graves face à leurs responsabilités.

Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs, chers amis,

Car en matière des droits humains, l’histoire reste à écrire.

Je vous remercie.

*********************************************************************

[All-English version]

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,     The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago.      The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always.     The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long.     But all human life is there.      The Universal Declaration sets out the rights to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to freedom of expression; to seek asylum; to work, to healthcare and education, and more.       But as we mark its 75th anniversary, the Universal Declaration is under assault from all sides.     The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the most massive violations of human rights we are living today.     It has unleashed widespread death, destruction and displacement.    Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure have caused many casualties and terrible suffering.    The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented dozens of cases of conflict-related sexual violence against men, women and girls. 

And serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against prisoners of war – and hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions of civilians – were also documented.    Excellencies,     Unfortunately, the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which should be our common blueprint, is too often misused and abused.     It is exploited for political gain; and it is ignored – often by the very same people.     Some governments chip away at it. Others use a wrecking ball.     And today’s public disregard and private disdain for human rights are a wake-up call.     This is a moment to stand on the right side of history.     A moment to stand up for the human rights of everyone, everywhere.    We must revitalize the Universal Declaration and ensure its full implementation to face the new challenges of today and tomorrow.     My Call to Action for Human Rights, launched three years ago in this chamber, is the blueprint.     Human rights are not a luxury that can be left until we find a solution to the world’s other problems.     They are the solution to many of the world’s other problems.    From the climate emergency to the misuse of technology, the answers to today’s crises are found in human rights.     Human rights are innate to being human.     The Hindu Vedas, the Ancient Chinese Analects of Confucius, the Bible and the Koran all set out very similar duties and rights.     The Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a cornerstone of the French Revolution in 1789, set out rights to liberty, property, to freedom of speech, the press and religion.     But these rights extended exclusively to men who were citizens – not to women, slaves, or minorities. When a French women’s rights activist published a parody of the men-only revolution, she was tried and executed for treason.     Less than ninety years [later], in 1875, my maternal grandfather was born.     He was an important role model and an inspiration throughout my life --a man who told me so much about his experiences that they became part of my own memories.     When he was born, the colonial project, based on massive human rights violations, was flourishing across Africa, Asia and the Americas.      Slavery – the utter denial of human rights – had recently been abolished in the United States – but would continue elsewhere and in other forms for many years.     Women everywhere were subjugated by men.     Although my grandfather’s life began in an era of human rights horrors, we saw incredible progress.     Slavery was formally abolished; most colonies won independence; women secured the right to vote. There was widespread recognition of civil and political rights, including to free speech and association.     At the start of the twentieth century, the harmful impact of industrialization brought attention to social and economic rights.      Civil society and the Trade Union movement led the fight for the rights to education, healthcare, social security and decent working conditions for everybody.     Half a century later, from the carnage of two world wars and the appalling crimes of the Holocaust, a transformative moment saw the birth of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.    The Universal Declaration sets out the rights inherent to all people for all time – an unparalleled achievement.     And thanks to the efforts of the Indian women’s rights activist, Hansa Mehta, the equal rights of women and men were explicit from the start: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”    My grandfather’s generation benefited from a century of progress on human rights that went hand-in-hand with remarkable leaps in human development.     In 1900, some 80 percent of people around the world lived in poverty. That figure had fallen to less than 10 percent by 2015.     The average person lived 32 years. Today, it’s more than 70.     Seven out of every ten people were illiterate. Now it’s less than two.    Instead of continuing this progress, we have now gone into reverse.     Extreme poverty and hunger are rising for the first time in decades.     Nearly half of the world’s population, 3.5 billion people, live in climate hotspots. These vast areas are fast becoming human rights disaster zones where floods, droughts and storms mean people are 15 times more likely to die of climate impacts.      A record one hundred million people have been forced to flee by violence, conflict and human rights violations.     Just yesterday, yet another horrific shipwreck in the Mediterranean claimed the lives of scores of people seeking a better future for themselves and their children.     Refugee and migrant rights are human rights.     They must be respected without discrimination.     While criminal gangs control migration routes, people will continue to perish. We need safe, orderly, legal routes for migrants and refugees.     And we must do everything possible to prevent the loss of life by providing search and rescue and medical care – as a humanitarian imperative, and as a moral and legal obligation.     Every day brings new evidence of human rights violations, from summary executions and torture to enforced disappearance and sexual violence.        Around the world, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, the persecution of Christians, racism and white supremacist ideology are on the march.      Religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+, and other minority communities are targeted for harassment and hatred.     Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are denied; and gender-based discrimination and violence are rampant.     Freedom of expression is in freefall and the number of media workers killed around the world last year rose by a horrific 50 percent.     Inequalities of all kinds are dividing societies ever more deeply.     Social cohesion and trust are draining away through the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots.     The pandemic left us with a pandemic of abuses of civil and political rights.     And it laid bare routine violations of economic and social rights, including the exploitation of women’s unpaid care work.      Looking forward gives rise to even greater alarm.      Unless humanity kicks its addiction to fossil fuels now, critical climate tipping points will crush the human rights of generations to come.      The misuse of new technologies could threaten human rights on a scale we can’t even imagine.      Future generations could inherit a world with no protection from misinformation, disinformation and lies.      A divided world of winner takes all.     We must heed the lessons of history.     As flashpoints multiply and deadly new risks loom, we must fight for our rights.      We must protect and promote the global consensus around the Universal Declaration and move forward into a new era of human rights for all.      This requires both a laser focus on the rights we have already recognized – and a quantum leap towards a new generation of rights.     The report on Our Common Agenda sets out a vision for the future with people and their rights at the centre.     A new social contract to rebuild trust and social cohesion.     A New Global Deal to heal divisions and give developing countries a greater voice in decision-making.      And a New Agenda for Peace, based on a holistic vision of the peace continuum from prevention to mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.     The Call to Action for Human Rights sets out seven areas for urgent attention: rights at the core of sustainable development; rights in times of crisis; gender equality; civic space; future generations; collective action; and new frontiers.     We at the United Nations are changing the way we work, recognizing that human rights are central to everything we do.     We are prioritizing the connections between human rights and the prevention of conflicts and crises of all kinds.     In July this year, the High Commissioner and I will launch a new Agenda for Protection.     This important initiative will seek to strengthen support from across the United Nations system to Member States to protect people and their rights, both in times of peace and in times of crisis and conflict.  

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

I have had the privilege of working with three High Commissioners – Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein of Jordan, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and now Volker Türk of Austria. All are outstanding leaders and advocates.

They delivered on the requests from this Council, and they also published more than 170 important country and thematic reports in their own right over the past six years.

These reports cover climate change in the Sahel, migration in Europe and the Americas, and human rights concerns in different contexts, including Afghanistan, Chile, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Libya, the Sahel, Ukraine, and Xinjiang, to name just a few.

This Council, your various mechanisms including the Universal Periodic Review, the Special Procedures and the Treaty Monitoring Bodies, and the Office of the High Commissioner, are central to creating momentum for progress.

This institution stands for the efforts of brave human rights defenders who risk persecution, detention and even death as they carry out their vital work.  

Your fact-finding missions, Commissions of Inquiry and independent experts are essential to justice and accountability.

The International Court of Justice occupies a unique role in international justice and accountability.

The International Criminal Court is the central institution of the international criminal justice system; embodying an aspiration for accountability for the most serious crimes.

I welcome moves towards accountability for human rights abuses at the national and regional levels, including those committed by the private sector. 

Legal challenges against climate-wrecking corporations are an important step forward.

Fossil fuel producers and their financiers must understand one simple truth: pursuing mega-profits when so many people are losing their lives and rights, now and in the future, is totally unacceptable. 

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

As we celebrate the impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our worst enemy is complacency. 

Because the story of human rights is only half-told.

We must continue to make human rights real in the lives of people everywhere.

We must take inspiration from the liberation and protest movements that achieved enormous progress over the past century – the abolition of slavery, decolonization, universal suffrage, the women’s movement and the end of apartheid.

Civil society, human rights defenders, people with disabilities, women and girls and young people around the world are already on the streets, demanding protection for all human rights, for everyone.

I stand with them. We must all stand with them.

• Switzerland
• Human Rights, democracy
• Daily Schedule
• Appointment Process
• Role of the Secretary-General
• Former Secretaries-General
• Official Travels
• Deputy Secretary-General
• Senior Management Group
• Global Leadership
• Messengers of Peace
• Annual Report on the Work of the Organization
• Coordinator for Multilingualism
• Public Disclosure
• Opinion pieces/Op-eds
• Secretariat
• Department of Global Communications
• Spokesperson's Office
• Scientific Advisory Board

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to this park navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to this park information section
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Alerts in effect, eleanor roosevelt and the universal declaration of human rights.

Last updated: June 25, 2020

Park footer

Contact info, mailing address:.

4097 Albany Post Road Hyde Park, NY 12538

845-229-6225 For Information about the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites.

Stay Connected

• World Peace

A Human Approach to World Peace

When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.   It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.   We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.   Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.   I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook - that:

1. Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems; 2. Compassion is the pillar of world peace; 3. All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology; 4. Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.

Solving Human Problems through Transforming Human Attitudes

Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.   By far the greatest single danger facing humankind - in fact, all living beings on our planet - is the threat of nuclear destruction. I need not elaborate on this danger, but I would like to appeal to all the leaders of the nuclear powers who literally hold the future of the world in their hands, to the scientists and technicians who continue to create these awesome weapons of destruction, and to all the people at large who are in a position to influence their leaders: I appeal to them to exercise their sanity and begin to work at dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons. We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so? Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat.   Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.   Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, colour, sex, or nationality.   The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centred approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.   In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such shortsighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective that of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.   All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.   One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.   Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.   On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. The global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.

Compassion as the Pillar of World Peace

According to Buddhist psychology, most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities. The pursuit of the objects of our desire and attachment involves the use of aggression and competitiveness as supposedly efficacious instruments. These mental processes easily translate into actions, breeding belligerence as an obvious effect. Such processes have been going on in the human mind since time immemorial, but their execution has become more effective under modern conditions. What can we do to control and regulate these 'poisons' - delusion, greed, and aggression? For it is these poisons that are behind almost every trouble in the world.   As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.   This type of compassion is what we must strive to cultivate in ourselves, and we must develop it from a limited amount to the limitless. Undiscriminating, spontaneous, and unlimited compassion for all sentient beings is obviously not the usual love that one has for friends or family, which is alloyed with ignorance, desire, and attachment. The kind of love we should advocate is this wider love that you can have even for someone who has done harm to you: your enemy.   The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of '1', which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.   Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should we not act kindly towards others? The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.   When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion - a true sense of love and respect for others - becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others.   Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgement. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.

World Religions for World Peace

The principles discussed so far are in accordance with the ethical teachings of all world religions. I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.   All religions agree upon the necessity to control the undisciplined mind that harbours selfishness and other roots of trouble, and each teaches a path leading to a spiritual state that is peaceful, disciplined, ethical, and wise. It is in this sense that I believe all religions have essentially the same message. Differences of dogma may be ascribed to differences of time and circumstance as well as cultural influences; indeed, there is no end to scholastic argument when we consider the purely metaphysical side of religion. However, it is much more beneficial to try to implement in daily life the shared precepts for goodness taught by all religions rather than to argue about minor differences in approach.   There are many different religions to bring comfort and happiness to humanity in much the same way as there are particular treatments for different diseases. For, all religions endeavour in their own way to help living beings avoid misery and gain happiness. And, although we can find causes for preferring certain interpretations of religious truths, there is much greater cause for unity, stemming from the human heart. Each religion works in its own way to lessen human suffering and contribute to world civilization. Conversion is not the point. For instance, I do not think of converting others to Buddhism or merely furthering the Buddhist cause. Rather, I try to think of how I as a Buddhist humanitarian can contribute to human happiness.   While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.   It is from this perspective that I welcome efforts being made in various parts of the world for better understanding among religions. The need for this is particularly urgent now. If all religions make the betterment of humanity their main concern, then they can easily work together in harmony for world peace. Interfaith understanding will bring about the unity necessary for all religions to work together. However, although this is indeed an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the doctrinal differences that exist among various faiths, nor can we hope to replace the existing religions by a new universal belief. Each religion has its own distinctive contributions to make, and each in its own way is suitable to a particular group of people as they understand life. The world needs them all.   There are two primary tasks facing religious practitioners who are concerned with world peace. First, we must promote better interfaith understanding so as to create a workable degree of unity among all religions. This may be achieved in part by respecting each other's beliefs and by emphasizing our common concern for human well-being. Second, we must bring about a viable consensus on basic spiritual values that touch every human heart and enhance general human happiness. This means we must emphasize the common denominator of all world religions - humanitarian ideals. These two steps will enable us to act both individually and together to create the necessary spiritual conditions for world peace.   We practitioners of different faiths can work together for world peace when we view different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart - love and respect for others, a true sense of community. The most important thing is to look at the purpose of religion and not at the details of theology or metaphysics, which can lead to mere intellectualism. I believe that all the major religions of the world can contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion.   Despite the progressive secularization brought about by worldwide modernization and despite systematic attempts in some parts of the world to destroy spiritual values, the vast majority of humanity continues to believe in one religion or another. The undying faith in religion, evident even under irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion as such. This spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace. Religious leaders and humanitarians all over the world have a special role to play in this respect.   Whether we will be able to achieve world peace or not, we have no choice but to work towards that goal. If our minds are dominated by anger, we will lose the best part of human intelligence - wisdom, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Anger is one of the most serious problems facing the world today.

Individual Power to Shape Institutions

Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.   The greater part of present world tension seems to stem from the 'Eastern bloc' versus 'Western bloc' conflict that has been going on since World War II. These two blocs tend to describe and view each other in a totally unfavourable light. This continuing, unreasonable struggle is due to a lack of mutual affection and respect for each other as fellow human beings. Those of the Eastern bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Western bloc because the Western bloc is also made up of human beings - men, women, and children. Similarly those of the Western bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Eastern bloc because the Eastern bloc is also human beings. In such a reduction of mutual hatred, the leaders of both blocs have a powerful role to play. But first and foremost, leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved.   If, for example, the leader of the United States of America and the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly met each other in the middle of a desolate island, I am sure they would respond to each other spontaneously as fellow human beings. But a wall of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding separates them the moment they are identified as the 'President of the USA' and the 'Secretary-General of the USSR'). More human contact in the form of informal extended meetings, without any agenda, would improve their mutual understanding; they would learn to relate to each other as human beings and could then try to tackle international problems based on this understanding. No two parties, especially those with a history of antagonism, can negotiate fruitfully in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hatred.   I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. I am sure many others share my wish that world leaders meet at the conference table in such an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding of each other's humanness.   To improve person-to-person contact in the world at large, I would like to see greater encouragement of international tourism. Also, mass media, particularly in democratic societies, can make a considerable contribution to world peace by giving greater coverage to human interest items that reflect the ultimate oneness of humanity. With the rise of a few big powers in the international arena, the humanitarian role of international organizations is being bypassed and neglected. I hope that this will be corrected and that all international organizations, especially the United Nations, will be more active and effective in ensuring maximum benefit to humanity and promoting international understanding. It will indeed be tragic if the few powerful members continue to misuse world bodies like the UN for their one-sided interests. The UN must become the instrument of world peace. This world body must be respected by all, for the UN is the only source of hope for small oppressed nations and hence for the planet as a whole.   As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.   Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio-economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.   The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing - which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. An appreciation of this new reality is indicated by the emergence of regional or continental economic organizations such as the European Economic Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and so forth. I hope more such trans-national organizations will be formed, particularly in regions where economic development and regional stability seem in short supply.   Under present conditions, there is definitely a growing need for human understanding and a sense of universal responsibility. In order to achieve such ideas, we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace. We cannot create peace on paper. While advocating universal responsibility and universal brotherhood and sisterhood, the facts are that humanity is organized in separate entities in the form of national societies. Thus, in a realistic sense, I feel it is these societies that must act as the building-blocks for world peace. Attempts have been made in the past to create societies more just and equal. Institutions have been established with noble charters to combat anti-social forces. Unfortunately, such ideas have been cheated by selfishness. More than ever before, we witness today how ethics and noble principles are obscured by the shadow of self-interest, particularly in the political sphere. There is a school of thought that warns us to refrain from politics altogether, as politics has become synonymous with amorality. Politics devoid of ethics does not further human welfare, and life without morality reduces humans to the level of beasts. However, politics is not axiomatically 'dirty'. Rather, the instruments of our political culture have distorted the high ideals and noble concepts meant to further human welfare. Naturally, spiritual people express their concern about religious leaders 'messing' with politics, since they fear the contamination of religion by dirty politics.   I question the popular assumption that religion and ethics have no place in politics and that religious persons should seclude themselves as hermits. Such a view of religion is too one-sided; it lacks a proper perspective on the individual's relation to society and the role of religion in our lives. Ethics is as crucial to a politician as it is to a religious practitioner. Dangerous consequences will follow when politicians and rulers forget moral principles. Whether we believe in God or karma, ethics is the foundation of every religion.   Such human qualities as morality, compassion, decency, wisdom, and so forth have been the foundations of all civilizations. These qualities must be cultivated and sustained through systematic moral education in a conducive social environment so that a more humane world may emerge. The qualities required to create such a world must be inculcated right from the beginning, from childhood. We cannot wait for the next generation to make this change; the present generation must attempt a renewal of basic human values. If there is any hope, it is in the future generations, but not unless we institute major change on a worldwide scale in our present educational system. We need a revolution in our commitment to and practice of universal humanitarian values.   It is not enough to make noisy calls to halt moral degeneration; we must do something about it. Since present-day governments do not shoulder such 'religious' responsibilities, humanitarian and religious leaders must strengthen the existing civic, social, cultural, educational, and religious organizations to revive human and spiritual values. Where necessary, we must create new organizations to achieve these goals. Only in so doing can we hope to create a more stable basis for world peace.   Living in society, we should share the sufferings of our fellow citizens and practise compassion and tolerance not only towards our loved ones but also towards our enemies. This is the test of our moral strength. We must set an example by our own practice, for we cannot hope to convince others of the value of religion by mere words. We must live up to the same high standards of integrity and sacrifice that we ask of others. The ultimate purpose of all religions is to serve and benefit humanity. This is why it is so important that religion always be used to effect the happiness and peace of all beings and not merely to convert others.   Still, in religion there are no national boundaries. A religion can and should be used by any people or person who finds it beneficial. What is important for each seeker is to choose a religion that is most suitable to himself or herself. But, the embracing of a particular religion does not mean the rejection of another religion or one's own community. In fact, it is important that those who embrace a religion should not cut themselves off from their own society; they should continue to live within their own community and in harmony with its members. By escaping from your own community, you cannot benefit others, whereas benefiting others is actually the basic aim of religion.   In this regard there are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.   Finally, a few words about material progress. I have heard a great deal of complaint against material progress from Westerners, and yet, paradoxically, it has been the very pride of the Western world. I see nothing wrong with material progress per se, provided people are always given precedence. It is my firm belief that in order to solve human problems in all their dimensions, we must combine and harmonize economic development with spiritual growth.   However, we must know its limitations. Although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness. In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors.   For renewal of human values and attainment of lasting happiness, we need to look to the common humanitarian heritage of all nations the world over. May this essay serve as an urgent reminder lest we forget the human values that unite us all as a single family on this planet.   I have written the above lines To tell my constant feeling. Whenever I meet even a 'foreigner', I have always the same feeling: 'I am meeting another member of the human family., This attitude has deepened My affection and respect for all beings. May this natural wish be My small contribution to world peace. I pray for a more friendly, More caring, and more understanding Human family on this planet. To all who dislike suffering, Who cherish lasting happiness - This is my heartfelt appeal.

Choose Language

Social Channels

Search website, popular searches.

• Principal Commitments
• Brief Biography
• Birth to Exile
• 52nd Anniversary of Tibetan Uprising Day Statement
• Message to 14th Assembly
• Retirement Remarks
• Reincarnation
• Routine Day
• Questions & Answers
• Short Biographies of the Previous Dalai Lamas
• Chronology of Events
• Award & Honors 1957 - 1999
• Dignitaries Met 2005 - 2010
• Dignitaries Met 2000 - 2004
• Dignitaries Met 1990 - 1999
• Dignitaries Met 1954 - 1989
• Travels 2010 - Present
• Travels 2000 - 2009
• Travels 1990 - 1999
• Travels 1980 - 1989
• Travels 1959 - 1979
• 2024 Archive
• 2023 Archive
• 2022 Archive
• 2021 Archive
• 2020 Archive
• 2019 Archive
• 2018 Archive
• 2017 Archive
• 2016 Archive
• 2015 Archive
• 2014 Archive
• 2013 Archive
• 2012 Archive
• 2011 Archive
• 2010 Archive
• 2009 Archive
• 2008 Archive
• In Pictures
• Practical Advice for Attending the Teachings in India
• Training the Mind: Verse 1
• Training the Mind: Verse 2
• Training the Mind: Verse 3
• Training the Mind: Verse 4
• Training the Mind: Verse 5 & 6
• Training the Mind: Verse 7
• Training the Mind: Verse 8
• Generating the Mind for Enlightenment
• Words of Truth
• Introduction to the Kalachakra
• Public Audiences
• Private Audiences
• Media Interviews
• Invitations
• The Gaden Phodrang Foundation
• LIVE Webcasts

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• International
• Human rights internationally

UN Human Rights Council 55: General Debate under Agenda Item 8

UK Statement for the General Debate under Agenda Item 8. Delivered by the UK's Permanent Representative to the WTO and the UN, Simon Manley.

Mr President, 

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action makes clear that democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people.  

But there was nothing remotely democratic about the recent, so called “elections” held in Ukrainian sovereign territory by Russia. Holding elections in Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia – all Ukrainian territory – is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and Ukrainian sovereignty. These regions will always be Ukrainian and Russia’s sham elections does not alter this fact.  

Nor were the elections held in Russia democratic.  

The vote was neither free nor fair. Its outcome was always clear. It served only to illustrate the severity of repression under President Putin.  

Putin removes his political opponents, controls the media, and then crowns himself the winner. Alexei Navalny’s death just weeks before the election was a tragic reminder of the severity of Putin’s political repression.  

Russia should release all those detained for opposing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. This includes dual British Russian national Vladimir Kara-Murza who should be released on humanitarian grounds for urgent medical treatment. 

It’s well beyond time to end Russia’s repression at home and the aggression abroad.

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Speech on Human Rights Day

Speech on Human Rights Day for Students

Every human being is deserving of the right to live in a safe place and earn a living. Even then in today’s global climate, many people are threatened to be robbed of their homes and basic rights. And in this pursuit, to inflict pain through various means one never feels safe. And for the very reason of injustices like this Human Rights Day is observed to allow these people the power to seek opportunities they are deserving of without feeling threatened. Human Rights Day speech can be given in different ways. This article entails a Long Speech on Human Rights Day and a Short Human Rights Day Speech.

Long Human Rights Day Speech

This format of a long 5-minute speech can be useful for students in grades 8-12 as they can discuss in detail the importance of this day and convey the message.

Good Morning, everyone, I am here to speak on a very crucial topic that is gaining even more attention today than ever before Human Rights and Human Rights Day. 73 years ago in 1948 on December 10th UN (United Nations), General Assembly adopted the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The proper implementation was not until they passed the official invitation to all the States and interested organisations after the approval of the Assembly in 1950. Since then, this day is annually commemorated for the celebration of Human Rights.

Today the world that we live in is divided by so many opinions and discriminations against gender, race, caste, and religion. The ones who are at the brunt of the receiving end of this harshness are the innocent children. Every child and human being deserves equal treatment in any room they enter regardless of their ethnicity and colour or gender.

Since we don’t live in an ideal world, the human rights of these discriminated people are under threat and they are only struggling and in doing so many have lost their lives as well. So to safeguard their interests and review the complaints of Human Rights Violation, the NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) is a body in India. It functions with similar objectives and aims to accomplish these missions like institutions for Human Rights in the world. It is a recommendatory body of constitution formed with the conformity of Principles of Paris. It acts according to the guidelines passed by the Government for the PHRA (Protection of Human Rights Act).

The main objective is to end human rights violations where some people are deprived of basic requirements like food, shelter, education, hygiene, and a safe place to grow and create opportunities for growth. This is a step in the direction to maintain peace and sanity in this ever-growing greedy and violent world. And it takes part in the Global Event wherein people celebrate the goodness in differences of the human beings and people who make an effort and an extra step to fight for this right also get awarded. It is a 5-yearly tradition that they award the United Nations Peace Prize in the Field of Human Rights and the Nobel Peace Prize. One such brave recipient of this award is Malala Yousafzai, a young girl who stood up against the Taliban who were depriving young children, especially girls of education. And during her fight, she managed to survive a gunshot and is still taking over the world and raising funds for educating girls.

Her efforts and achievements are truly noteworthy and deserving of all the praises and awards. Whenever we encounter any such violation of human rights in our lives, let’s be inspired enough to take a step to end this and celebrate the rights to be in peace and harmony.

Short Speech on Human Rights Day

This form of a Short Human Rights Day Speech is helpful for students in grades 4-7 to convey the importance of this day in brief.

Good morning everyone, I Abc (mention your name) feel honoured to be here today and talk about Human Rights Day. We are very fortunate to have a home, a roof over our heads, food, and are able to come to school safely. These are basic human rights and every being is deserving of this. But in so many places around the world people are robbed of their right to shelter, food, and even education, the most concerning being the safety of girls.

The United Nations is a body that has taken the responsibility to safeguard the rights of the victims of this violation on 10th December 1948, 73 years ago the UN General Assembly approved Article 423 (V) and declared the celebration of Human Rights Day. It was in 1950 that the invitation was officially extended to other States and organisations whose values and aims matched the objectives of UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Bringing harmony and peace into the world by observing and trying to eliminate the problems and complaints received from people who are facing the brutalities of violation of Human Rights. This day is celebrated worldwide to commemorate the proclamation made by the UN in 1948 on December 10.

The Indian Government confers the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) and under the conformity of Principles of Paris, NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) is formed.

It’s important to be aware of the state in our country and take a step to fight against what’s wrong so human rights are intact and served right for the purpose.

10 Line Speech on Human Rights Day

This is a 2-minute Speech on Human Rights helpful to convey the idea and meaning to students in grades 1-3.

Human Rights Day is observed and celebrated on 10th December every year worldwide.

It is on this day in the year 1948, the United Nations acknowledged and proclaimed in their General Assembly to observe the celebration of human rights.

Other states and interested organisations who also work for safeguarding human rights and ending the violations were extended the invitations.

And the work actively started in the year 1950.

The Indian body that works extensively in this regard with the United Nations is  NHRC (National Human Rights Commission).

It was formed following the Principles of Paris.

NHRC also abides by the ideologies of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) stated by the Government of India.

The primary objective is to keep safe from discrimination with regards to any type of differences like race, religion, caste, and creed.

The rights are basic and universal like the right to life, free from discrimination, torture, slavery, and degrading treatment.

Any type of violation is a harm and threat to humankind and each step taken in the direction to protect these rights is in the interest of peace which is the need of the hour.

FAQs on Speech on Human Rights Day

1. What is the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?

The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is an international document adopted by the UN assembly on the date of December 10, 1948, as Resolution 217 during its third session. The document entails the basic rights and freedoms of all human beings. At that time, from the 58 members present at the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none voted against it, eight abstained, and two did not vote. The declaration consists of a complete 30 articles explaining in detail the "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" of human beings.

2. What are the basic human rights provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? 

There are a total of 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which included the "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" of a human being. A simplified version of these rights, which are included in these 30 articles are given below: 

All human beings are born Free and Equal, everyone has the right to be treated in the same way.

Don’t discriminate against any human beings, whatever our differences.

Everybody has the right to live in freedom and safety.

Having or making slaves is not accepted.

Nobody has the right to hurt or torture anybody.

All the rights written in the declaration should be respected everywhere.

Everybody should be treated equally before the law.

Nobody can put a person in jail or detain him/her without any good reason. Neither one can send the person away from his/her country.

You should be able to ask the law and law agencies to help if any of your human rights are threatened.

The person under trial has the right to have a free and fair public trial. The judges of the trial should not tell anyone what to do or not.

Everyone should respect this statement “Proven till guilty”. A person under trial is not a criminal until he/she is proven to be guilty of a wrong deed.

Everyone has their right to privacy, one can’t interfere with the other person’s privacy, nobody can bother you or your family without good reason.

A person can live wherever he/she wants to in their country and travel to wherever they want to.

If a person’s country can’t provide a safe place to live, then the person can seek asylum in other countries.

We also have the right to belong to a country and have a Nationality.

3. When is Human Rights Day celebrated?

Human Rights Day is celebrated on the occasion of the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the UN assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on the date of December 10, 1948. This “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” entails the fundamental rights of human beings who live on the planet. This document “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is translated into more than 500 languages, hence holding the Guinness World Record for the most translated document throughout the world.

4. Why is 10th December celebrated as Human Rights Day?

Human Rights Day is celebrated on 10 December annually across the world to celebrate the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the UN assembly as Resolution 217. 48 out of 58 countries that were present at the United Nations, voted in favour of this document named “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

It is celebrated in order to acknowledge this “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as to acknowledge the rights that are provided to every human being living on mother earth. To discuss the issues which harm these basic rights of human beings in any or sense anywhere around the globe.

5. What is the theme for Human Rights Day 2021 and 2020?

The theme of Human Rights Day 2021 was “equality”. As in today's world, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Human Rights Day of 2021, is to discuss how to deal with inequality.

In the year 2020, the theme of Human Rights Day was "Recover Better - Stand Up for Human Rights". The year 2020 was the year of COVID-19 and hence, the Human Rights Day theme was how to recover from the pandemic.

Speech on Human Rights in simple and easy words

Table of Contents

Speech on Human Rights: The concept of Human Rights holds great significance in our lives, especially in today’s time when the exploitation of human beings is increasing day by day. The exploitation has been reported more than ever. To understand the basic rights of a human, it becomes necessary for the teachers to let students get themselves abreast of them. So here we give you both short speeches on Human Rights as well as long speeches on human rights to learn about human rights and the various categories under it. The content that we provide is comprehensive and can help students to learn all about basic rights to live life with dignity. We can confidently say that our content of the speeches on Human Rights are relevant to the topics and are a good reference point for all the learners.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Speech on Human Rights­­­­­­­

Speech on human rights­­­­­­­ – 1.

Hon’ble Principal, Vice Principal, My Fell­­­­­­ow Colleagues and Dear Students – Good Morning to everyone present here!­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

I would like to utilize this opportunity to share my views on human rights and their relevance in today’s world.

All people on Earth have these rights, which work for everyone, no matter who they are or where they’re from, and they exist to safeguard against harm and violations.

Let us first understand what exactly Human rights entail. Broadly speaking, human rights are such rights which each individual becomes entitled to by virtue of his birth and nationality. These rights are considered to be indispensable for any human being irrespective of his/her nationality, race, religion, language, etc. Different countries have their own set of legislatively backed human rights which its citizens are entitled to but the basic theme across is the same – to provide each of its citizens equal rights and not to discriminate among them.

The concept of Human rights has been constantly evolving over the period of time. There have been some basic tenets in the way human societies functioned which recognized the importance of giving each individual access to certain rights. The society recognizes these rights of the individual and respects them.

The earliest civilizations tried codifying the rights as part of the law. Hammurabi’s law was one of the first recorded mentions of the rights of individuals. However, these rights across the societies varied for different individuals. Although the basic concept has been that all citizens are equal, the definition of citizens vastly varied and there were many people who would fall beyond the gambit of citizens and hence do not have a statutory backing to their human rights. Over the period of time, the efforts of various social reformers and activists across different time periods have been to bring in more people into this concept of being citizens.

The international law and theories which started taking shape around 19 th century have attempted towards defining the human rights which are rights each individual is entitled to irrespective of the race, religion or culture. The qualification of being an individual defined here is in larger sense unlike the definition of citizens in the earlier societies. The efforts towards abolishing slavery, fights for equal rights to women, universal adult franchise are few of the efforts that ensured the discrimination of whom to be recognized as being eligible to have rights have been reduced and every individual by virtue of being born as human being is entitled to human rights.

In today’s world, most of the countries recognize human rights and make it a part of their constitutional provisions. The countries which have not yet recognized the basic equality of all its citizens are trying to bring in changes in and provide safeguards for all the citizens to be enfranchised of the rights. These countries face the challenge of deep rooted stigma and discrimination carried down from many centuries. Implementing and practicing at the ground level still remains a problem. Individuals and in many cases large groups of individuals are denied their basic human rights. The main reason for it is the lack of awareness of what they are entitled to.

Human rights are universal and everyone needs to be educated on these and understand that no matter where they are born and who they are, by virtue of being born as humans some rights automatically become a part and parcel of their life in a social set up.

Speech on Human Rights­­­­­­­ – 2

Good Morning Everyone!

Today, please allow me to utilize this opportunity and talk on a very important topic on which each one of us should have a fair knowledge and that is Speech Human rights!

Human rights belong to everyone, no matter who they are. These rights cover life, freedom, and more, for all people, regardless of differences

The concept of Human rights as how we define now is of a recent origin in context of the long Human history. Modern thinkers and commentators attribute human rights to be a product of the French revolution in the 18 th century where the values of liberty, equality and fraternity stood as the central theme for the whole struggle. However the human yearning for basic rights of all the individuals has been a fundamental aspect all through the course of human history. It is this understanding of the basic nature of human rights that we all need to be able to comprehend and realize its meaning, purpose and of course importance in the present times.

The various revolutions and movements which took place in the modern history like French Revolution, American Revolution, the various freedom movements against colonialist rule, anti-slavery movement, women rights movements, etc all have a common theme running through them. It is to recognize the basic right of each individual to lead a life of equality and freedom. These movements helped shape the modern concept of Human rights. There have been many charters, declarations, statements etc which have been drafted and implemented by various authorities around the world to put into effect Human rights to each of its citizens.

United Nations Organization (UNO) has recognized the importance of Human rights by declaring December 10 th as World Human Rights day. This has been adopted since the year 1948. The rights can be included as part of the Human rights varies from each country to country. Modern states across the world have given prominence to this concept of Human rights by providing the citizens with rights which are backed up by the constitution and legislation. India, through its constitution provides its citizens set of fundamental rights. All the citizens in India have equal right to enjoy these fundamental rights and have a right to appeal when any of these fundamental rights are violated. Some Human rights like “Right to live” have a global acceptance and can be exercised in any country within the legal statuettes.

The main idea which I intend to communicate is the need for each one of us to understand the importance of Human rights. The need has a duality to it. The first reason we need to understand about Human rights is for self. As citizens of a nation, it is of primary importance that we have an understanding of the rights that we are entitled to. This would help us to exercise the rights and fight against any exploitation. This understanding helps to serve a larger purpose as well. It is to recognize the rights of other citizens or in a larger context the rights of other human beings and ensure that we do not infringe on them.

This understanding to fight for self and value others claim form the basis for practicing human rights in its true sense.

Speech on Human Rights – 3

Dear Friends – Warm Greetings to all of you! I hope this day finds you in the best of spirit.

Today, I am going to address a very crucial aspect of human life, i.e. Speech on Human Rights. Human rights are defined as those set of rights which are fundamental to human existence. Since they have a universal appeal, people from all over the world are entitled to it. Thus, these rights other than having a universal and fundamental dimension carry a global appeal as well. These rights enable a man to live under no fear or threat. Universalization of human rights without any discrimination is a mark of civilized society. These rights are framed while keeping in mind fundamental human demands and needs. Thus, human rights have found its place in the constitution of every nation.

And, it is the responsibility of very nation to secure human rights for its citizens and give them the liberty to perform actions within their interest, which cause no threat to the integrity of others. As these rights carry a universal appeal, human rights and problems associated with them have become a cause of global concern. In fact, the UN has adopted Human Rights Charter and has asked various governments to not only give them a due place in their constitutional body, but also ensure their enforcement. It was on the 10 th of December in the year 1948 that UN came up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the contemporary times, a growing concern has been observed towards safeguarding human rights.

The issues related with human rights differ from society to society whereas the entitlement of social, economic, civil as well as political rights of the people differ from one nation to the other as per the laws governing those rights of the people belonging to a specific country. For instance, the UN has taken much interest in doing way with the discrimination caused against women. Other than that, racial discrimination also forms a major cause of concern under human rights violation. Despite the fact that Black people are a majority in South Africa, they do not enjoy political or social rights as much as white people do, who continue to dominate black people. Nevertheless, this practice of racism has been abolished by the UN and a resolution too has been passed in this regard.

Therefore, it becomes the utmost duty of every nation to form such laws and create such conditions where human rights of the citizens can be protected. Our country, India, has a democratic set up where its citizens are entitled to enjoy basic human rights, in addition to the freedom of expression. These rights are defined as Fundamental Rights, which needless to say form a significant part of the Indian Constitution.

Our Indian Constitution assures six fundamental rights, which are:

• Right to Freedom
• Right to Equality
• Right to choose Religion
• Right against Exploitation
• Right to Constitutional Remedies
• Cultural and Educational Rights

These human rights are founded on the doctrine of human solidarity, support, growth and access of everyone to the common legacy of humankind.

Speech on Human Rights – 4

Hon’ble Principal, Vice Principal, Teachers and My Dear Students – Good Morning to one and all!

I, Priyanka Vashisht from Standard-IX (C), wish to deliver a speech on Human Rights. As Social Science is my favorite subject the best topic that I could think of for this speech ceremony is Human Rights and more so because it’s a vital part of human existence. Why vital because we do not live in isolation, but in a democratic set up where everyone has certain roles and responsibilities to deliver. Besides, each one of us is also entitled to certain rights so that we can enjoy our status as human beings.

In a civilized society, rights play an extremely critical role in the overall growth of human personality. The individual rights are referred to as conditions under which an individual is able to attain his goals or ideals by enjoying the privileges that come with a minimum set of rights. If I were to define human rights, I would define it in the words of Harold Joseph Laski, who said “Rights, in fact, are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best”. To put it in simpler terms, rights are the fundamental necessities for a man to lead a good life, which are acknowledged under the state’s legal code.

Human rights are universal in nature having a legal and moral framework, which aim towards safeguarding the interest of the people from rigorous legal, political and social abuses. Following are the human rights examples:

• Freedom of Movement
• Right to Expression
• Right to Freedom of Religion
• Right to associate with a Political Party
• Right to a Fair Trial when accused of a crime
• Right not to be Tortured

In addition, there are certain social and economic rights as well. Let’s take a look:

• Right to Education
• Right to Work
• Right to have a good living standard
• Right to have an equal pay for equal work
• Right to leisure and rest

These rights have moral grounds and have found a place in law at both national as well as international levels. They are primarily addressed to the governments for their observance and enforcement. The chief source of the modern-day thought behind human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). The human rights philosophy attends to such questions as the existence, nature, content, universality and validation of human rights.

However, despite these clearly formulated set of human rights, multiple cases of human rights breach at different places of this world have been observed. I firmly believe that in such a situation an everlasting state of prosperity cannot prevail in a nation where its natives cannot enjoy human rights which are so integral to their existence.

Now, I would request my other fellow students to join me on stage and say a few words in this regard. Thank You!

Check out some Trending Speech Topics for Students and Kids

Speech on Human Rights FAQs

How do you start a speech about human rights.

Begin with a strong statement or a touching story related to human rights to grab your audience's attention.

What is the best human rights speech?

The best human rights speech is one that is passionate, well-researched, and inspires people to take action for justice and equality.

What are the 7 main human rights?

The 7 main human rights include life, liberty, equality, dignity, justice, education, and freedom of expression.

What are human rights speeches?

Human rights speeches are talks or presentations that address issues related to basic freedoms and fairness in society.

The best human rights speech is one that touches hearts, educates, and motivates positive change.

You can start a human rights speech with a compelling story, a shocking fact, or a thought-provoking question to engage your audience.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Speech Writing /

1-Minute Speech on Human Rights for Students

• Updated on  
• Nov 29, 2023

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ‘A right delayed is a right denied.’ He led the American Civil Rights Movement for equal rights for African Americans in the USA. In 1964, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting against racial discrimination using non-violence, which he learned from Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology. He encouraged the mass participation of people who collectively worked for equal rights. This was just one example where people actively participated in fighting for their human rights. Below we have highlighted a speech on human rights for students which will offer you insights about them.

This Blog Includes:

What are human rights, 1-minute speech on human rights,  paragraph on human rights, 8 quotes on human rights.

Also Read: 160+ Best and Easy English Speech Topics for Students

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). UDHR includes a broad range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights essential to human well-being. The nature of these rights is universal; they are offered to every human being regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other differences. 

Also Read: Essay on Feminism for Students

‘My warm regards to everyone present here. I stand before you to present my ‘Speech on Human Rights.’ Today, we can freely travel anywhere in the world, obviously with valid documents. Well, this was not the case 50 years ago. Human rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr., Malala Yousufzai, Rosa Parks, and hundreds of others have bravely fought for human rights.’

‘Some of the basic human rights are the right to life and liberty, the right to work and education, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of opinion and expression. These are not just abstract ideals; they are legal rights written under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For a fruitful and sustained future, it is our duty to collectively protect and promote these rights equally among all people.’

‘To fully implement human rights, we must advocate, educate, and empower individuals to stand up against injustice. A world of 8 billion population cannot live in harmony without human rights. Therefore, to fully implement human rights, comprehensive and sustained efforts are required.’

Also Read: Essay on Human Rights

Also Read: Social Media Bane or Boon: Short and Long Speech for Students

Also Read: Speech on the Importance of English in 250 to 500 Words

Here are 8 quotes on human rights. Feel free to add them to your speech on human rights.

• ‘Human rights mean the right to good health, a dignified life, and respect for the will of everyday people.’ – Denia Castillo
• ‘Human rights mean no one sleeps hungry.’ – Hassan Abdille
• To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.’ – Nelson Mandela
• ‘All 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.’ – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• ‘Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity.’ – Mother Teresa
• “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.’ – John F. Kennedy
• ‘We declare that human rights are for all of us, all the time: whoever we are and wherever we are from; no matter our class, our opinions, our sexual orientation.’ – Archbishop Desmond Tutu
• ‘Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.’ – 14th Dalai Lama

Ans: Human rights are basic universal rights that are offered to every human being to live a fruitful life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) includes a broad range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights essential to human well-being.

Ans: Human rights were adopted by the UNGA in 1948 when Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the assembly. He passed the UDHR Resolution.

Ans: Human rights are important in this aspect as they protect the dignity and integrity of every human being on equal terms. 

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting speech topics for your school, visit our speech writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Pushing forward for gender equality: CSW68 event showcases strategies for countering pushback and advancing women’s rights around the world

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

More than 2 billion people, across more than 60 countries, will head to the polls in national and local elections in 2024. Amid concerns that democracy and gender equality are backsliding, these elections represent a watershed for pushing forward for gender equality.

On 20 March 2024, UN Women, in partnership with UNDP, UNFPA, and OHCHR, gathered partners to discuss strategies for advancing gender equality at “Multistakeholder Partnerships and Practices to Push Forward for Gender Equality, Human Rights, and Democracy”, a flagship side event held at UN headquarters and online during the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women .

“We, collectively, know that the backlash against gender equality is on the rise”, said Sima Bahous, Executive Director of UN Women, opening the discussion. “Long-established, universal human rights and women’s rights frameworks are being challenged. Hard-won gender equality gains are at risk and already being reversed.” 

“Yet, we are not deterred”, she continued. “Women human rights defenders, youth, civil society, parliamentarians, and public servants at all levels within governments and in multilateral organizations are working to push forward for gender equality in their communities and in their countries. They are working for peace, a planet in balance, and to advance the promises of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Co-opening the event, Abdallah Al Dardari, UNDP Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Regional Bureau for Arab States, noted that “any rebound from COVID and the other polycrises in the world today cannot happen with the sliding back of women’s rights” and highlighted the determination of UN agencies to push forward together.

Diene Keita, UNFPA Assistant Secretary-General, Deputy Executive Director (Programme), highlighted “the collective responsibility to provide effective solutions, including setting norms and policies for gender equality, despite growing crises and complex geopolitics”, and spotlighted examples of UNFPA’s commitment to pushing forward for gender equality through partnerships, including working with religious and traditional leaders to challenge harmful norms and stereotypes.

“The feminist movement and movements for women’s rights continue relentlessly and strongly as a significant force for equality, building alliances across sectors and diverse groups”, said Lopa Banerjee, Director of UN Women’s Civil Society Division, who invited speakers to share their examples of work around the world. 

Mgeni Hassan Juma, Deputy Speaker of the Zanzibar House of Representatives, and Anna Kulaya, National Coordinator of Women in Law and Development Africa (WiLDAF), shared insights from their collaboration involving the government, parliamentarians and civil society to prevent violence against women in politics especially ahead of Tanzania’s upcoming elections. 

Mgeni Hassan Juma cited a recent bill passed to categorize attacks on women in politics in Tanzania as election-related offences, calling it “a critical milestone that guarantees women’s safety in the electoral process and therefore promotes their effective participation as candidates, voters, and election administrators.”

The significance of a collective approach was highlighted by Arundhati Sridhar, Research Lead at Gender at Work India. She cited the example of the Feminist Leadership Lab, which brought 25 young leaders from across India to share expertise and collective strategies, including on engaging more meaningfully with electoral politics. A key impact of this approach, as Sridhar highlighted, was that it generated “two of the most precious resources for movement building: solidarity and hope.”

As other speakers shared their experiences, common threads appeared relating to strategies and practices of building trust and consensus and ensuring the voice and experiences of women informed advocacy and policy development. For example, Andy Yentriyani, Chair of Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence Against Women, shared how building coalitions—including survivor’s groups, labour groups, law enforcement, and government officials—and taking careful efforts to enable constructive dialogue was influential in the passage of a 2022 law to provide protection from sexual violence.

Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Executive Director of GWL Voices for Changes and Inclusion, noted that since 1945 women have led the 54 main international organizations only 13 per cent of the time. 

“In 78 years of history, the most representative body of the UN, the General Assembly, has had only four women as its President”, she said. Espinosa advocated for gender equality within leadership positions of the multilateral system, proposing gender rotation for the presidency of the UN General Assembly to address the inequality gap.

Saša Jurečko, Deputy Permanent Representative from Permanent Mission of Slovenia to the UN, called on member states and stakeholders to support the demand for better representation of women in multilateralism and in leadership positions in the UN, noting “effective advocacy and change comes from working together.”

Samira Asghari, member of the International Olympic Committee and former captain of the the Afghan women’s national basketball team, and Isabelle Picco, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the UN and co-chair of the Group of Friends of Sport for Development and Peace, highlighted the transformative power of sport to push forward for gender equality, particularly for young women and girls. 

Throughout the discussion, speakers from diverse backgrounds showcased the importance of collaborative efforts in countering backlash, advocating for legislative reform, and supporting women’s movements. Common threads included the significance of building trust, fostering solidarity, and ensuring women's experiences inform change. 

The event can be watched in full here .

• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Gender equality and inequality
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment

Related content

Speech: Gender equality – just, prudent, and essential for everything we all aspire to

Speech: We are not deterred – Let us push forward together for gender equality

Speech: Ambitiously proactive – Generation Equality brings hope to stalled progress and financing

Human rights crisis in El Salvador ‘deepening’: Amnesty

Rights group says President Nayib Bukele has reduced gang violence by replacing it with state violence.

As El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele embarks on his second term in office, an international rights group has warned that his war on gangs has created a spiralling human rights crisis.

As of February 2024, Bukele’s draconian two-year campaign , which has seen the authorities detain about 78,000 people, has caused 235 deaths in state custody, said Amnesty International on Wednesday. Citing a local rights group, it also reported 327 cases of enforced disappearances.

Keep reading

‘world coolest dictator’ nayib bukele declares election win in el salvador, ‘trapped in this hell’: how one el salvador town transformed under bukele, could el salvador’s gang crackdown spread across latin america.

“Reducing gang violence by replacing it with state violence cannot be a success,” said Amnesty’s Americas director Ana Piquer in a statement. The Salvadoran government had adopted “disproportionate measures”, she said, denying, minimising and concealing human rights violations.

Bukele launched his war on gangs in March 2022, slashing homicides to the lowest rate in three decades after imposing a state of emergency that suspended the need for arrest warrants and the right to a fair trial, among other civil liberties. Prison overcrowding currently stands at 148 percent, according to Amnesty.

After Bukele consolidated power in a landslide win in February’s election, the rights group warned the situation looks set to worsen. “If this course is not corrected, the instrumentalization of the criminal process and the establishment of a policy of torture in the prison system could persist,” it said.

On Tuesday, Minister of Justice and Security Gustavo Villatoro pledged there would be no let-up in the government’s campaign against the gangs, and promised to “eradicate this endemic evil”.

“This war against these terrorists will continue,” he said on state television.

Piquer said that Bukele had created a “false illusion” that he had found “the magic formula to solve the very complex problems of violence and criminality in a seemingly simple way”. She described the international community’s response as “timid”.

“The international community must respond in a robust, articulate and forceful manner, condemning any model of public security that is based on human rights violations,” she said.

Speech on Human Rights [1, 2, 3, 5 Minutes]

1 Minute Speech on Human Rights

Ladies and gentlemen!

Everybody has the fundamental rights to which they are entitled by virtue of being a human. These rights include, among others, the freedom from discrimination and the right to freedom of expression, as well as the right to life, liberty, and personal security. Regardless of a person’s ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other trait, it is crucial that we respect and defend their human rights. We must speak out against any abuses of power and defend the rights of people who are disadvantaged and oppressed. We can build a society that respects and upholds the dignity of every individual.

2 Minutes Speech on Human Rights

The fundamental rights to which every person is entitled stem from the fact that they are fellow humans. These rights include, among others, the right to life, liberty, and personal security; the right to education, employment, and health care; the right to assembly, speech, and religious freedom; and the right to equal treatment under the law.

In other words, everyone, everywhere is entitled to the protection of human rights. Additionally, they are inalienable, which means they cannot be taken away or abandoned.

Unfortunately, in reality, human rights are not always upheld and preserved. Numerous individuals experience prejudice, abuse, and persecution due to their colour, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Governments have a duty to uphold, respect, and implement their citizens’ human rights. But if they don’t, it’s up to the world community to hold them responsible and show support for the people who are suffering.

To guarantee that everyone can live with respect, equality, and dignity, we must all work together. The basis for a just and peaceful world is this.

3 Minutes Speech on Human Rights

Everybody has the fundamental rights to which they are entitled by virtue of being a human. These rights encompass the freedoms of expression, religion, and association as well as the rights to life, liberty, and the protection of one’s person. They also include the rights to education, employment, and health.

But despite the fact that these unalienable rights are recognised by the UN and protected by multiple international treaties and laws, they continue to be infringed daily all across the world.

Because of their gender, race, or social standing, people are denied the right to an education. Due to their political, sexual, or religious convictions, they are prohibited from working. Due to their colour, age, or ability, they are denied the right to health.

However, these infractions harm a wide range of people. These injustices do harm to entire societies and communities. People’s capacity to make contributions to their communities and the global community is hampered when their rights are denied.

What therefore can we do to safeguard and advance human rights?

When and wherever we see injustice and discrimination, we can start by calling it out. We can aid organisations that fight for the preservation and defence of human rights. We can inform ourselves and other people about our rights and other people’s rights. We may also demand that our governments uphold and defend the rights of all of its constituents.

5 Minutes Speech on Human Rights

All people have the right to certain freedoms and protections simply because they are fellow humans. Since these rights are universal, they are applicable to everyone, regardless of their identity or place of residence.

Human rights come in many various forms, such as the right to life, liberty, and personal security; the right to an education and a job; the right to religious and free speech; and the right to take part in politics and public life.

The human rights of others must be acknowledged and respected since they are essential to preserving each person’s dignity and value. We are all impacted when someone’s human rights are infringed.

Unfortunately, there are still human rights violations happening all around the world. As global citizens, it is our duty to speak up for others’ rights and work to make the world a place where everyone is treated with respect and dignity.

We may accomplish this by standing up against injustice, lending our support to groups that preserve human rights, and working to establish laws and other frameworks that uphold and advance the rights of all people.

Let’s work together to build a society where everyone’s human rights are upheld and safeguarded.

Examples of sentences that can be used in starting of this speech

Examples of sentences that can be used in closing of this speech, more speeches.

• Speech on women’s empowerment
• Speech on social media
• Speech on environment
• Speech on gender equality
• Speech on poverty
• Speech on Global Warming
• Speech on Environmental Pollution
• Speech on Earth Day
• Speech on Discipline
• Speech on Human Rights
• Speech on Education
• Motivational speech for students
• 2-minute Self-introduction speech examples
• Speech on Mahatma Gandhi
• Speech on freedom fighters
• Speech on APJ Abdul Kalam
• Speech about friendship
• Speech about Technology
• Speech on Parents
• Speech on Health
• Speech on Health and Fitness
• Speech on Health and Hygiene
• Speech on Mental health
• Speech on Yoga
• Speech on Doctor
• Speech about Life
• Speech on sports
• Speech on Racism
• Speech on Population or overpopulation
• Speech on Overcoming Fear
• Speech about Family
• Speech on Mobile Phones
• Speech on water conservation
• Speech on Honesty
• Speech on Culture
• Speech on Unity in diversity
• Speech on Peace
• Speech on Time
• Speech on Success
• Speech on Leadership
• Speech on Nature
• Speech on Career
• Speech about Music
• Speech on Democracy
• Speech on Noise Pollution
• Speech on Air Pollution
• Speech on Gratitude
• Speech on Time management
• Speech on Dance
• Speech on Climate Change
• Speech on Artificial Intelligence
• Speech on Cyber security
• Speech on Teamwork
• Speech on Goal Setting
• Speech on Plastic Waste Management
• Speech on Feminism
• Speech on Bhagat Singh
• Speech on Books
• Speech on Laughter is the Best Medicine
• Speech on Swami Vivekananda
• Speech on Road Safety
• Speech on Cyber Crime
• Speech on Energy Conservation
• Speech on Online Education
• Speech on Quaid-e-Azam
• Speech on Allama Iqbal
• Speech about Rainy Day
• Speech about Teachers’ day
• Speech about Graduation
• Speech about Love
• Speech about Football
• Speech about Money
• Speech about Anxiety
• Speech about Politics
• Speech about Nelson Mandela
• Speech about Kindness
• Speech about Cleanliness
• Speech about Deforestation
• Speech about Agriculture
• speech about Cricket
• Speech about Unemployment
• Speech about Birthday
• Speech about Patience
• Speech about the Value of Time
• Speech about Positive Thinking
• Speech about Knowledge is Power
• Speech about Games
• Speech about Indian Culture
• Speech about Appreciation
• Speech about Farming
• Speech about Debut
• Speech about Purpose
• Speech about Hardwork
• Speech about Thank you / Thankfulness / being thankful
• Speeches about Communication
• Speech about Dreams and ambitions 
• Speech about Confidence
• Speech about traveling and Tourism
• Speech about Corruption
• Speech about the millennial generation
• Speech about Success and Failure
• Speech about Environmental Awareness
• Speech about Life Goals
• Speech about Stress
• Speech about the Life of a Student
• Speech about Social Issues
• Speech about Mom
• Speech about God
• Speech about Plants
• Speech about Fashion
• Speech about Basketball
• Speech about Business
• Speech about Smile
• Speech about Animals
• Speech about Passion
• Speech about Youth Empowerment
• Speech about Youth Leadership
• Speech about Responsibility
• Speech about Plastic Pollution
• Speech about Courage
• Speech about Homework
• Short Speech about Engineering
• Speech about Positive Attitude
• Speech about Dad
• Speech about my Favourite Teacher
• Speech about Electricity
• Speech about pen
• Speech about Family Problems
• Speech about Compassion
• Speech about Achievement
• Speech about Challenges
• Speech about Modern Technology
• Speech about Opportunity
• Speech about Anti Corruption
• Speech about Nursing Profession
• Speech about Innovation
• Speech about Wisdom
• Speech about Air
• Speech about Change in the World
• Speech about Quality Education
• Speech about Dedication
• Speech about Motherhood
• Speech about Clean Environment
• Speech about National Integration
• Speech about Body Language
• Speech about an Event
• Speech about Healthy Habits
• Speech about Listening
• Speech about Humour
• Speech about Memory
• Speech about the Importance of Sports and Games
• Speech about Happy Life
• Speech about Growing up
• Speech about Soldiers
• Speech about Television
• Speech about my Favourite Book
• Speech about Mother Nature
• Speech about Moral Education
• Speech about Mathematics
• Speech about Perseverance
• Speech about Oral Communication
• Speech about My Pet
• Speech about Determination
• Speech about Studies
• Speech about community
• Speech about best friend
• Speech about depression
• Speech about marriage
• Speech on Natural disasters
•  Speech on 15 August
• Persuasive Speech on bulling
• Speech on life

Related Posts:

• Human rights law solved MCQs for lawyers
• Past Papers Citizenship Education (Human Rights)
• Gender and Human Rights Past Papers
• Human Rights and Social Issues in Pakistan MCQs
• Which of the following is the first charter of human's rights?
• [PPSC Pakistan] SYLLABUS OFFICE ASSISTANT (LUMP SUM) HUMAN RIGHTS & MINORITIES AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT (PUNJAB TREATY IMPLEMENTATION CELLS)

Contents Copyrights reserved by T4Tutorials

Human rights abuses are happening right now – start a monthly gift today.

• Videos & Photos
• Take Action

Hong Kongers Are Purging the Evidence of Their Lost Freedom

Share this via Facebook Share this via Twitter Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

“What should I do with those copies of  Apple Daily ?”

Someone in Hong Kong who I was chatting with on the phone recently had suddenly dropped her voice to ask that question, referring to the pro-democracy newspaper that the government forced to shut down in 2021.

“Should I toss them or send them to you?”

My conversations with Hong Kong friends are peppered with such whispers these days. Last week, the city enacted a draconian security law — its second serious legislative assault on Hong Kong’s freedoms since 2020. Known as  Article 23 , the new law criminalizes such vague behavior as the possession of information that is “directly or indirectly useful to an external force.”

Hong Kong was once a place where people did not live in fear. It had rule of law, a rowdy press and a semi-democratic Legislature that kept the powerful in check. The result was a city with a freewheeling energy unmatched in China. Anyone who grew up in China in the 1980s and 1990s could sing the Cantopop songs of Hong Kong stars like Anita Mui, and that was a problem for Beijing: Freedom was glamorous, desirable.

When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the city’s people accepted, in good faith,  Beijing’s promises  that its capitalist system and way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years and that the city would move toward universal suffrage in the election of its leader.

Not anymore. Now Hong Kong people are quietly taking precautions, getting rid of books, T-shirts, film footage, computer files and other documents from the heady days when the international financial center was also known for its residents’ passionate desire for freedom.

I used to joke that I never needed to watch dystopian thrillers like “The Handmaid’s Tale” or “The Hunger Games.” As someone who has lived and worked for years in Hong Kong and China, I know what it feels like to descend into deepening repression, remembering our free lives.

As Beijing kept breaking its promises over the years, Hong Kongers took to the streets to defend their freedoms nearly every sweltering summer.

In 2003, demonstrations of half a million people forced Hong Kong’s government to shelve an earlier attempt to introduce Article 23. In 2014, hundreds of thousands peacefully occupied parts of the city for 79 days to protest moves by Beijing to ensure only candidates acceptable to the Communist Party could run for election as Hong Kong’s top leader.

But Hong Kongers were unprepared for the coming of President Xi Jinping of China, the architect of another frightening crackdown far away on the other side of the country.

In 2017, I started to receive reports that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities were disappearing into “ political education” camps  in the northwestern region of  Xinjiang . People who had managed to get out told me how Xinjiang’s borders were suddenly closed, escape was becoming impossible and that speech or behavior that was once acceptable — like simply praying at a neighbor’s house — could get you jailed. Officials would  enter homes  to inspect  books  and decorations. Uyghurs were discarding copies of the Quran or books written in Arabic, fearing they would be disappeared or  jailed  for insufficient loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. One man told me he had burned a T-shirt with a map of Kazakhstan on it — many of Xinjiang’s inhabitants are ethnic Kazakhs with family ties across the border — as any foreign connection had become risky.

As these stories of repression and fear emerged from Xinjiang, they were instantly recognizable in Hong Kong.

In 2019, the Hong Kong government proposed a  bill  that would have allowed extradition to China. Fear and anger — and the feeling that Hong Kong people needed to make one last stand while they could — exploded into  months of protest .

One of the 2019 protest slogans — “Today’s Xinjiang is tomorrow’s Hong Kong”— sounded to me like hyperbole at the time. Now, five years later, it feels prescient. Today, it’s Hong Kongers who are disposing of dangerous books and T-shirts. Some people I know have quietly left an online chat group that includes foreign organizations and individuals; such contact could put the group’s Hong Kong members at risk. Others are quitting social media; tens of thousands have  already left  Hong Kong.

After Beijing imposed the National Security Law in Hong Kong in 2020, it used the law to decimate the city’s pro-democracy movement by jailing its leaders.  More than 1,000  people remain in jail. Fearful of arrest, independent  labor unions  and media outlets disbanded. Libraries pulled hundreds of books off shelves. Films and plays were censored. Civil servants can no longer stay neutral but are forced to pledge allegiance to the government.

Both the National Security Law and Article 23, passed last week, are broad, vague and blunt instruments intended to critically wound civil liberties and transform institutions that protected people’s freedoms into tools of repression. Under Article 23, anyone found guilty of participating in a meeting of a “prohibited organization,” or who discloses “unlawful” and vaguely defined “state secrets,” could face a decade behind bars.

Beijing has couched this repression in terms like “rule of law,” and visitors to Hong Kong often fail to recognize the transformations taking place beneath the enduring glitz of the city. That leaves the rest of the world detached from the reality on the ground — unable to sympathize with Beijing’s victims or to feel their breathlessness under this growing weight.

One acquaintance in Hong Kong told me that people he knew had become blasé about their sudden loss of freedom and were just coldly watching the destruction of the city and what it stood for. But others, toughened over the years, still express hope and defiance. The solidarity forged through nearly two decades of widespread activism won’t die easily. A Pew Research Center  survey  this month found that more than 80 percent of Hong Kongers still want democracy, however remote that possibility looks today.

The Chinese government wants the world to forget about Hong Kong, to forget what the city once was, to forget Beijing’s broken promises. But Hong Kong’s people will never forget. Don’t look away.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

• China and Tibet
• Free Speech
• Press Freedom

More Reading

Hong kong: new security law full-scale assault on rights.

Hong Kong: Governments Should Oppose Security Bill

“Our Numbers Are Dwindling”

Myanmar’s Post-Coup Crackdown on Lawyers

“I Could Have Been Next”

Stymied Reforms in the Maldives

Most Viewed

Yemen: houthis sentence men to death, flogging.

A Dirty Investment

Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza

“I Sleep in My Own Deathbed”

Q&A: Access to Abortion is a Human Right

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement today.

Every weekday, get the world’s top human rights news, explored and explained by Andrew Stroehlein.

Musk's X Corp loses lawsuit against hate speech watchdog

• Tesla Inc Follow
• X Corp. Follow

MUSK TAKEOVER NOT FORESEEABLE

The Technology Roundup newsletter brings the latest news and trends straight to your inbox. Sign up here.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Xiaomi set for plunge into EVs at a tricky time for China autos

China's Xiaomi will launch its highly anticipated electric vehicle (EV) on Thursday when it will reveal its pricing and start taking orders, marking the electronics company's entry into the world of automobiles.

U.S.-based Keysight Technologies is preparing to launch a formal offer for British telecommunications testing firm Spirent Communications , a person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.

Rights watchdog chief voices caution against hate speech during election campaigns

hate speech-rights watchdog

SEOUL, March 27 (Yonhap) -- The chief of the National Human Rights Commission on Wednesday urged each party and candidate to refrain from hate speech ahead of the April 10 parliamentary elections.

Song Doo-hwan, chairman of the commission, said in a statement that state institutions, such as the National Election Commission, should declare their commitment to responding sternly to acts that publicly slight or insult a candidate based on their hometown or sex.

"Hate speech during the election campaign period should be monitored and rectified to make sure no rights or freedom of social minorities are violated," Song said.

Song also called on each party and candidate to refrain from expressions that strengthen the prejudice and stereotypes of social minorities.

Though some parties are making efforts to end politics of hatred by reflecting candidates' history of hate speech in the nomination process, Song said some politicians could still use hatred and discrimination as a campaign tool.

Song also asked the press to refrain from excessively reporting on cases of hate speech.

[email protected]