Personal notes on an important anniversary.

A common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

- Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

Shortly after arriving in New York from London in March 1946, I became the sixth member of the fledgling UN Division of Human Rights (later the Centre for Human Rights). Sadly, I am one of the few survivors of that period, and regret that none of the main architects of the Universal Declaration is alive today to share in the observance of this fiftieth anniversary. The promotion and encouragement of respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms is among the purposes of the United Nations, defined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, which mentions human rights seven times, but makes no reference to "protection" of human rights.

At the founding Conference of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, the Latin American delegations, in particular, wanted the Conference to discuss an international bill of human rights; Panama even wanted it to be incorporated as part of the Charter. But time did not permit that and the preparation of such a bill was assigned as a matter of priority to the Commission on Human Rights. Indeed, it was the Latin American women representatives, especially Bertha Lutz of Brazil and Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic, who pressed successfully for the inclusion in the Charter of provisions on equal rights of men and women and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.

It was at the first General Assembly, in London in early 1946, that Eleanor Roosevelt first appeared on the United Nations scene, a stately figure in black as she passed through the corridors of Church House, Westminster, and visited the Secretariat offices, which were situated around an enormous bomb crater. "I might point out that during the entire London session of the Assembly I walked on eggs. I knew that as the only woman on the delegation I was not very, welcome. Moreover, if I failed to be a useful member, it would not be considered that I as a woman had failed, but that all women had failed ...".

Needless to say she did not fail. In a move typical of her, she gathered together the 17 women, from 11 countries, who were attending this first General Assembly, and together they drafted an open letter to the Women of the World. Mrs. Roosevelt read the one-page letter to the plenary Assembly on 26 February 1946, and it was hailed as an important first step in the promotion of women's rights.

In the spring of 1946, the United Nations moved from London to Hunter (now Lehman) College in the Bronx, New York. There, meetings of the nine-member "nuclear" Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, and of the (then) Sub-commission on the Status of Women, chaired by Bodil Begtrup of Denmark, were convened in April/May 1946. Later that year, the Sub-Commission became a full Commission of 15 members, authorized to report, like the Commission on Human Rights, directly to the Economic and Social Council. The full human rights Commission consisted initially of 18 members.

Any legal document, whether it is national legislation or an international declaration or convention, goes through a lengthy process of negotiation, drafting and revision. The international bill of human rights was no exception, especially as this was an ambitious new venture. No such comprehensive statement of human rights had ever been attempted. Governments, intergovernmental bodies and NGOs, as well as prominent legal scholars, sent proposals, suggestions and draft bills to the Secretariat. These, and such historic documents as the British Magna Carta, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States Bill of Rights, formed the basis for the outline of an international bill of human rights put together by the Division of Human Rights, under the personal guidance and leadership of John Humphrey of Canada. I have vivid memories of the Commission's session in Geneva in December 1947 when it decided that the international bill of human rights should consist of three parts: a declaration; a legally binding convention; and measures of implementation.

The issue of the form the international bill should take had been a divisive one in the Commission, pitting the United States, which wanted a short declaration or manifesto, against the United Kingdom, which was pressing for a legally binding convention. Others stressed the need to develop effective measures to ensure compliance with the proposed bill. Work began immediately on all three elements of the international bill. I served as secretary of the working group on the draft declaration, which was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, with Rene Cassin of France as Rapporteur. A second working group, chaired by Charles Dukes (Lord Dukeston) of the United Kingdom, began work on the draft of a legally-binding convention, the title of which would be the International Covenant on Human Rights.

"Why", Lord Dukeston was asked on his return to England, "was an international bill of rights so important and did that mean that Governments would surrender some of their sovereignty?" "Yes", he replied. "That is the very essence of world justice and that is what makes the whole idea so inspiring." Such sentiments are rarely heard today! The drafting of the Covenant took many more years to complete, and it was not until 1966 that the General Assembly adopted and opened for signature two separate instruments: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

A third working group, led by Hansa Mehta of India (one of the few women representatives on the Commission), focussed on measures of implementation. Colonel Hodgson, the Australian member of the Commission, ambitiously proposed the establishment of an international court of human rights. His proposals unfortunately did not advance very far, and even today, without the problems of cold-war politics, the establishment of an International Criminal Court, with a much more limited mandate, has proved to be fraught with difficulties.

The Universal Declaration was completed one year later, as exhausted delegates voted by roll call in the early morning hours and adopted this historic document, by 48 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions. Those abstaining were Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR and Yugoslavia.

Some of the personalities behind the Universal Declaration whom I remember best are: Eleanor Roosevelt, an inspiring leader and extremely effective negotiator, at times a hard task master, but one who never expected more of others than she gave, unstintingly, of herself; Rene Cassin, President of the Conseil d'Etat of France, a strong and determined advocate for human rights; P. C. Chang from China who provided unique philosophical background for the document; and Charles Malik of Lebanon, who saw the United Nations as the body to which the oppressed could appeal for redress of grievances. They were the four officers of the Commission on Human Rights elected to guide it in its work.

Distinguished women also worked hard to ensure that women's rights were not overlooked. I remember especially Minerva Bernadino and Marie-Helene Lefaucheux of France, who had been a leader in the French resistance during the Second World War and had in fact succeeded in rescuing her husband from the clutches of the Gestapo. The senior members of the Human Rights Division who assisted behind the scenes in the negotiations and drafting were: John Humphrey, a professor of law from McGill University in Canada and the Division's first director; Egon Schwelb, the first deputy director, a senior legal advisor to the United Nations war crimes Commission in London and native of Czechoslovakia; and Edward Lawson, an African American and the first head of the Section on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.

The Declaration reflects the different political, cultural and economic backgrounds of those who shared in its preparation, giving it the universality reflected in its title, and comprehending civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Laws alone, however, while they are an essential starting point, do not necessarily protect the civil and political rights of the individual without effective judicial and other remedies, and legislation by itself does not guarantee economic, social and cultural rights. The United Nations record in this area has been mixed. It is ironic that in 1947, when the Commission on Human Rights began to draft the international bill of human rights, it failed to deal adequately with the many communications from individuals claiming violation of their rights, and chose rather to postpone effective action pending the coming into force of the international covenant on human rights. It recommended to the Economic and Social Council a cumbersome procedure for handling such communications, prefacing its recommendation with the statement that "the Commission recognizes that it has no power to take any action with respect to violations of human rights". To its credit, the Commission on the Status of Women did not include any such statement regarding communications dealing with the status of women. The Council, however, made identical recommendations applicable to both types of communications. The procedure was intended to protect Governments against complaints made for political reasons. The only safeguard for the sender was the provision that his or her name would not be divulged to the Government, which was to receive a copy of the complaint made against it. I had the frustrating task of dealing with this correspondence and often had to read some heart-rending appeals and inform the authors that the United Nations could not help them. The procedure was not entirely without positive results, however, since some Governments did investigate complaints and take steps to remedy them.

Despite a number of setbacks over the past 50 years, the United Nations has nevertheless come a long way in its work to promote human rights and improve the situation of women. The procedure for dealing with communications alleging gross violations of rights has been substantially improved. There is also now, in addition to the two International Covenants on human rights, a vast array of UN conventions in force which build on the provisions of the Declaration and cover topics such as genocide, racial discrimination, torture, discrimination against women and children's' rights. Most of these provide for reporting systems, and, in some instances, establish a limited right of petition.

Anniversaries encourage us to review the past, evaluate the present, and assess the future in the light of history. Based on my personal knowledge and experience of past and present events, I see the story as one of steady but uneven progress. Looking at the turbulent world of today with its brutal internal conflicts, genocide, "ethnic cleansing" and rape, as well as the continued evidence of mass poverty, starving children and the gap between the haves and the have-nots, even an optimist must admit to some discouragement and wish that the United Nations was better able to prevent such gross violations of human rights.