protected by other articles (Egypt, Belgium, India, Australia) and one representative argued pragmatically, saying it would be too difficult to

satisfy all needs (Geoffrey Wilson, the United Kingdom). Some of the

Belgian resistance was connected with the use of irredentism by Hitler in the pre-war years (the Sudetenland is the most well-known example). There were German mInorities on Belgian soil. 32

The issue of minorities was reopened in the Third Committee. In addition to the Eastern Europe countries, Denmark eagerly defended the protection

31 Lebanon was long an example of a stable, consociational democracy, but lately the sItuation is totally changed. See Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies, 147-50.

32 E/CN.4/SR.73, p. 5-SR.74, p. 6. The French point of view seemed to be dependent of the representative present at this stage. France was represented by Ordonneau at parts of this session, not by René Cassin. At a previous stage, Cassin considered the article about protection of the mInorities as one of the most important (E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.15, p.

6) and France had proposed its own text on this issue (E/CN.4/82/Add.8, p. 6).

of minorities, as well as India and others. The American states continued to be the strongest opponents of such an article. While they argued that the problem did not concern them because of their policy of assimilation, they

still feared it would disrupt national unit y . As a result, the action for the

minorities led nowhere.33

2) General and vague formulations

Vague expressions of controversial and difficult issues was another way to get a compromise. A short text could be chosen which did not have room for any precise details. Moreover, there were always vague terms which

could be interpreted in different ways. Both strategi es were used.

Since the Declaration was given status as "a common standard of achievement" and was not a law, it was not necessary to be precise. One

possible consequence was that states would be willing to accept an

ambitious text that was not legally binding document. The implementation of the principles would be considered voluntary and the states did not have

to coint themselves.34

The preamble of the Declaration is the best example of the strategy of adopting diffuse formulation. Egon Schwelb has quite rightly described as deliberately obscure;

The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by

progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance. (Italics added.)35

Another illustration of the conscious use of vague language is the use of the word "arbitrary". The word allows for individual judgment, which doubtless

was intended. Four of the articles of the Declaration use the word

"arbitrary":

33 Denmark' s special interest in the minority question was interlinked with the Danish

minority in Germany. "Danish amendment to Human Rights Declaration," 30 September 1948, US(P)/A/C.3/11, box 60, US Mission to the United Nations, RG 84, NARA.

34 Quoted from the preamble of the Declaration.

35 Alston, "Universal Declaration at 35," 61-62.

No arbitrary arrest, detention or exIle. (Art.9.)

No arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.

(Art.12.)

No arbitrary deprivation of nationality. (Art.15.) No arbitrary deprivation of property. (Art.l?)

The sections on social and economic rights also contain some words which clearly show the very general character of these articles. The text includes for example the right to socIal security in accordance with the organization

and resources of each state (Art. 22); the right to just and favourable

conditions of work (Art. 23.1); the right to just and favourable

remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection (Art. 23.3); the right to reasonable limitation of working hours (Art. 24); the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including . . . (Art. 25). As with the term arbitrary, these articles required judgment.

Another strategy was the selection of terms and concepts which the

drafters defined in different ways. The participants had a somewhat

ambiguous attitude towards this strategy. On the one hand, a reference to Fascism and Nazism was rejected because of the difficulties in defining these concepts. The French representative, Grumbach, pointed out the danger of using expressions which could be interpreted differently. The USSR and their allies regarded it essential to include an explicit reference to Fascism and Nazism. Pavlov argued that without such a reference the Declaration was a mere abstraction. This might give opportunity for the propagation of Fascist and Nazi views. He declared that during the war there was no need for any definition of Fasc'sm and N azism, but if it was

necessary now, it was not difficult. Fascism meant dictatorship,

imperialistic in its foreign policy and reactionary in its domestic policy.

This definition met opposition, e.g. by the representative of the United

Kingdom stating that the word "fascism" had lost its value. Churchill had, after all, been called a fascist by a USSR representative.36

Similarly, the word "democracy" was included in the Declaration in spite of the variety of interpretations. Interestingly, it was the USSR and its allies that urged an inclusion of "democracy" in the text. Opposition or scepticism was expressed by the United Kingdom, India, Chile, China and Belgium. Representatives of these countries argued that the concept had

36 The discussion on the concepts of

"Nazism"/"Fascism", see E/CNA/AC.lISR.21, pp. 3-7;

E/CN.4/SR.49, p. 10; OR-ECOSOC 7/3, p. 698; GAOR-TC 3, pp. 67, 415 and 426.

come to have different meanings in different countries for instance, the

United Kingdom did not want to allow the right to vote "in certain

backward countries." Some delegates also criticized the Soviet conception of democracy. The USSR representative, Pavlov, defined a democracy as

a state in which all citizens had an equal right to participate in the

government, and he denied that the existence of a number of parties was a critèrion of democracy. The actual term, however, was only mentioned once, namely "the general welfare in a democratic society" (Art. 29.2).

In document .¡ Human Rights as International (sider 102-105)