Article 8 Of The UDHR Was Formed In Wake Of Hitler's Germany

Moreover, the implementation of human rights protection has been inefficient and should be abandoned, according to some. Many cite the UN as having failed to implement their basic human rights goals, thus creating a failing organization. The topic of the argument is that the UDHR was formed in wake of Hitler’s Germany, as a way to prevent future genocides. Almost all of the concepts, rules, and approved conventions focus on the individual persons but do not account for the collective persons, which was the charter’s original main goal. The Genocide Convention, however does prescribe the protection of human groups, but focuses only on punishment, not prevention. Additionally, Article 8 of the UDHR guarantees a solution, “for acts in violating

Merely, there is only the guarantee of freedom of religion as a right (Clark, etc. 1998, pp. 31-35). Furthermore, the charter is not the first piece of legislation to declare the fundamental protection of human rights. Many countries like the US, UK, and Canada had practiced such values but remained silent while Hitler killed innocent people. This goes to show that although something may be declared in legislation, does not mean states are willing to act on it. In fact, some of the states previously mentioned were committing atrocities of their own. For example, at the same time, British troops killed twenty four unarmed villagers during the Malayan emergency in Batang Kal, Americans were practicing blatant discrimination, and France had taken some foul measures in North Africa (Mingst, etc. 2016, p.120). It is also important to emphasize that many believe that the UN, or any member states, have no authority to intervene in genocides or other scenarios. There is not one point in the UDHR that allocates the protection of a persecuted person, racial tribe, ore religious ethnic

The UN charter’s main goal is to, “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,” thus showcasing the goal above all is inherently met. In the modern age, because of these mechanisms in place for defining human rights, there is preservation of one’s human rights. For example, in India, more young girls are going to school, simply because of education being treated as a human right. In the same way, regardless of universality or cultural relativism, knowing if there is a problem at hand is enough to create preventive measures. The current charter in place has a democratic creation system, and allows for states to disagree. Thus, a state’s cultural view is still evident in this scenario. Lastly, it is noted that human rights are a concept first and a legality second. Therefore, the proposition that the stances imposed by the UDHR are vague, isn’t wrong. The main intention of the article is to be open minded, and to allow room for discussion, as long as the main articles are followed. No infringement upon state sovereignty is made this way, and states are able to implement freely (O’Byrne 2003, p. 41). Lastly, since the case of Rwanda the UN has created more preventive measures. Another treaty was enacted in 2004 to prevent genocide and