George Weigel

To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

A Troublesome Declaration

That staying power derived in part from the follies committed by Eleanor Roosevelt when she led the drafting of the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the basic international legal text on the subject. While the Universal Declaration does give priority to civil rights and political freedoms, it also uses the language of “rights” to describe a vast array of social and economic desiderata, such as jobs, health care, and education. The historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., once described the politics of the Declaration in these terms: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights included both ‘civil and political’ rights and ‘economic, social, and cultural rights,’ the second category designed to please states that denied their subjects the first.” This is, perhaps, too charitable an interpretation of the role of Mrs. Roosevelt, who was not unsympathetic to the idea that social and economic goods should be considered “rights.”

But however responsibility is assigned, the fact remains that the Universal Declaration, for all the good its norms have helped accomplish, has also fostered the confusion, and in some respects the debasement, of the human rights debate. By using the same language to describe both the immunities an individual holds against the state (civil rights) and the claims that an individual is putatively justified in making on the state (economic “rights”), the Universal Declaration created an image of moral equivalence that dozens of tyrants turned to their advantage. How many times, during the Cold War, did we hear it said, “Well, they just have a different concept of human rights— they think it’s more important to provide free health care and to guarantee everybody a job than to have regular elections and a free press”? Too many times, and not by cranks but by presumably serious people. The human rights curriculum approved by the National Council for the Social Studies in the early 1980s, for example, used precisely this tactic to suggest that the people of the oxymoronic People’s Republic of China enjoyed a large, if different, range of “human rights.”

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and holds EPPC’s William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.


Share This Post

Latest Articles

International Affairs

When Ideology and Blasphemy Meet

In May 1993, the “World Russian People’s Council,” a “meeting place” for those “concerned about the present and future of Russia,” was created at the instigation of Metropolitan Kirill of


Baseball and Rumors of Angels

One of my life’s great blessings has been to have known and worked with men and women whose books I first studied in college and graduate school. High on that

Popular Articles


Stay in the know by receiving George Weigel’s weekly newsletter