The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on 10 December 1948 by the United Nations, 48 countries voting in favour, 8 abstaining and none against, has marked a new era in human history creating the possibility of modern societies moving towards achieving a wide range of important human rights through legal enactments supported by institutional and policy changes not only in the sphere of civil and political rights but also in the realms of economic, social and cultural rights. What we celebrate this year is the 64^th anniversary of the UDHR.

The importance of the UDHR, succinctly written in 30 articles with an equally lucid preamble, as a social manifesto is perhaps higher than the importance of the Communist Manifesto proclaimed a century ago in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. If the Communist Manifesto attempted to achieve the objectives of socialism, the UDHR combines both liberal and socialist aspirations and sets forth some primary conditions or minimum “common standards of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” The UDHR in this sense is the culmination of two movements in human history: liberalism and socialism.

If John Locke was the philosopher who first emphasised the ‘right to individual freedom’ in modern times in his two Treatises of Government (somewhere after 1681),[1] who even referred to Ceylon, Thomas More was the thinker who emphasised the ‘right to social equality’ as a modern social aspiration in his Utopia (1516). He also referred to Ceylon. In terms of democratic transformation, one may say that the UDHR in its formulations took more inspiration from the American Revolution (1777) and the French Revolution (1798); but inspiration from the Russian Revolution (1917) is also evident in the text. More clearly, the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO) since 1919 on labour and economic rights was a decisive influence. That is his how a combination of both ‘political rights’ and ‘economic rights’ are present in the UDHR, although one may say in an unbalanced fashion.

Mahatma Gandhi writing on an initial draft of the UDHR in 1947 briefly emphasised the importance of human duties; an Asian concern so to say. I asked one of the drafters of the UDHR, John Humphrey, in 1987 in Malta when I met him there, whether they could consider Gandhi’s views in finalising the UDHR and he pointed out Article 29 (1) which says: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.” This is something that the UN should elaborate and develop. However, the rights in the UDHR are not conditioned on duties of any sort; conditioning is the modus operandi of many authoritarian regimes throughout the world.

There was a particular context within which a declaration of human rights was necessary with a future and a universal vision. That was the advent of several forms of fascism (Germany, Italy and Japan) and the horrendous human rights violations perpetrated during the Second World War. While around 20 million died in direct military confrontations, civilian casualties were double of that amount including those died of war related diseases and famine. The Holocaust claimed 11 million lives; and Japanese invasions at least around 6 million in Asia. As the Preamble of the UDHR noted “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.”

With the above brief preface, this article attempts to critically assess the contents of the UDHR for mainly educational purposes, keeping the human rights issues in Sri Lanka constantly in mind.