|
|
 The Fight for Human Rights* Rene Cassin
|
It was the fundamental aim of Hitlerism to stamp out the Jews, but their destruction was also part of an attack on all that the French Revolution stood for: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Human Rights. Hitler's racialism was essentially an attempt to destroy the principles of the French Revolution.
It was under the inspiration of the Rights of Man that the Jews of the 19th century, in their several countries, began their fight for freedom. There is, then, a direct link between the problems of Human Rights and the destruction of the fruits of Hitlerism.
It is vitally important for Jews to defend Human Rights in general since just as their emancipation only began at all in the 19th century, because there was first a Declaration of Human Rights, made in France in 1789, so at the present time, if Jews do not support Human Rights for all men, they themselves have no chance of escaping fresh persecution in the future. The solidarity which exists between the Jews and the rest of the oppressed, or simply under-privileged, world is plain to see. We know that building for the future is a very difficult thing to do; we cannot hope to complete the work in one generation; all the more reason to begin at once. And we must of course work hardest at education. In order to reform attitudes of mind we must train educationalists who will themselves have a new mentality. In every country where Jews are scattered, they must concentrate on the idea that education is the key to the future.
Of course, education is only one thing, and we must remember that the developing countries need aid; technical, financial and economic cooperation is vitally necessary to them. It is idle to talk about Human Rights to people who have nothing to eat and, conversely, the well-fed but ill-educated and the ignorant cannot hope to have any conception of what "Human Rights" means.
I would like to consider defence of Human Rights from a legal point of view. This is not by any means the most important aspect; educational and technical aid come first, as we have seen. But the legal side is enormously important, though it cannot show results overnight. We are proud and rather appalled by the discoveries of science; we are watching the world changing at an unprecedented pace. Hitler was well aware of this when he suppressed Human Rights while using scientific research to murder more efficiently. But we acknowledge that social evolution cannot keep abreast of scientific discovery; societies progress slowly, and I would even go so far as to say that part of the process of world evolution is hindering our own efforts.
For example, one of the great stumbling-blocks in the way of Human Rights is the question of national sovereignty. I was at the League of Nations in 1933 for the Bernheim case. Bernheim, a jew, had been the victim of a violation of the Treaty of Upper Silesia. How did Germany, how did Hitler and Goebbels justify this? Germany's defence was "Every man is master in his own house. You have no business to inquire what we do with our socialist, our pacifists or our Jews. You have no right to pry into our affairs. This is a sovereign State."
That was the situation which led to the second World War. The same is true today: The Great Powers are still saying "Every man is master in his own house. You have no right to know what I am doing with my own citizens." You can see how difficult it is to uproot a principle which derives undeniably from practical reality, since the independence of States is in itself a desirable thing, something people will fight for. The right of nations to govern themselves is accepted as the natural order of things. Why should we fear that any country protects its interests too vigorously? Our anxiety is justified in that there comes a moment when the State says: for the purpose of my development, I propose to set my own rules, as I think fit, and if I destroy men in the process, that is no concern of yours.
But it is very much our concern. World progress cannot be built on the ashes of human suffering. That is the aim of Human Rights. We must acknowledge at this point that resistance to an international system of controls is very strong. It is evident everywhere in all kinds of matters.
We must not lose heart because of this, and I venture to suggest that we ought in each case to proceed in two stages: first, through the United Nations Charter, which grants the UN certain rights--the inspection rights of the Human Rights Commission. We have the Universal Declaration and the specialised institutions, like the International Labour Organisation and UNESCO which have the rights to supervise the implementation of agreements which concern them. This is one possible channel, whose purpose is to prompt States to take action. In general they accept it and I can say as a senior member of the Human Rights Commission, that they do so, for example, in the matter of periodic relations between states. Originally when we attempted to introduce it, States objected that it was in violation of their rights to independence, but they came to accept it.
Methods based on consultation, lobbying and persuasion, will succeed up to a point. Can we go a step further and employ censure? I believe we shall take that step. First, there is the regional approach. In Europe, the 17 States which signed the Treaty of Rome authorised the enactment of certain of the principles of the Universal Declaration as articles of the Treaty, and by means of successive agreements they are adding to their number. For all rights recognised in the Treaty, they have agreed to a form of European control over the manner in which the agreements are administered. In the first instance, they will only hear complaints brought by States, but out of 17 signatory States there are already 11 who have given their consent to jurisdiction by the European Commission over complaints brought by private persons or non-governmental organisations. Out of 2,500 petitions (complaints) received and judged by the Human Rights Commission, there were only three such petitions, all the rest came from individuals. The great majority were declared inadmissible, but eventually 30 or so were declared admissible. Out of these 30 some went to the Committee of Ministers, and there were even a number which went forward to the European Court. This is an example of how States sharing a common civilisation and a common geographical location or economic cohesion can achieve real unanimity of a kind allowing of public confidence in international jurisdiction.
We ought now to think of applying the European system to Latin America. Until now there have been difficulties because it was hoped to cover the whole of America—North and South. I am, however, of the opinion that an agreement will be achieved, at any rate as far as Latin America is concerned. We may expect that one day Eastern Europe and South-East Asia will have their treaties. This would give us a number of satisfactory regional systems. There are nevertheless still formidable difficulties and we must not think that the regional system is the perfect answer. Since Human Rights are universal, there must be a corresponding universal sanction; we cannot talk about European Human Rights, American Human Rights, etc. That would be to divide humanity and there would consequently be no Universal Human Rights. We can counter this danger by improving our inspection methods concerning the administration of international treaties.
Now we come to the question of the agreement on the elimination of racial discrimination, which is a question for the World Jewish Congress, first and foremost, together with the agreement now in preparation on the elimination of discrimination on religious grounds. Some States, who have always been opposed to the idea of a Commission of Experts, nevertheless voted affirmatively when the issue was racial discrimination. The Agreement, voted in 1965 by the UN, accepted a committee of experts and even a system of optional petitions which, although very tentative, does testify to some progress and to the fact that the methods followed by the International Labour Organisation, in my view the most effective, are beginning to gain ground.
At UNESCO, in working out the agreement on discrimination in education, we succeeded in appointing a committee empowered to conciliate, to intervene and check facts, which has not so far acted. The agreement is a comparatively new one, but the machinery is there.
We must not despair, but, on the contrary, call on all our reserves of courage, patience and tenacity. It took 2,000 years for the State of Israel to be reborn; far less time will be necessary before the Declaration of Human Rights, national at the beginning of the 19th century, international in the mid-2Oth century, is at last effectively put into operation and becomes a reality. It would be a splendid thing if the Jews, after having suffered more massacres, persecutions and misery than any other race, were the first to go to the aid of oppressed people of every race, country and social class, to restore to them the dignity of men enjoying the protection of the law.
*"The Fight for Human Rights" was published by "World" in January 1969 , by Rene Cassin.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
ماجد معالى
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست