This podcast considers revolutions in religion, society and politics, and some of the people involved in them, and their effects on the notions of rights.

The Reformation helped to detach notions of rights and the authority of the (Catholic) church from earlier notions of natural law.  The Renaissance saw an increased focus on the individual.  But the effects of these were neither consistent nor universal.

A revolution in England, while it helped sweep away the notion of the divine rights of kings, replaced it with the supremacy of a parliament to which only landed men could vote.

The revolutions in the United States and France, and their accompanying declarations of rights, did start a process of articulating and specifying what the rights of individuals could be, but were hedged in by political compromises (slavery remained legal in the United States until 1865) as well as by existing social mores (which downplayed women’s rights by relegating those away from the public sphere into the private).

There was an ebb and flow of rights; not an inexorable upward progression to human rights as we would recognise them today.

This podcast considers revolutions in religion, society and politics, and some of the people involved in them, and their effects on the notions of rights.
The Reformation helped to detach notions of rights and the authority of the (Catholic) church from earlier notions of natural law.  The Renaissance saw an increased focus on the individual.  But the effects of these were neither consistent nor universal.
A revolution in England, while it helped sweep away the notion of the divine rights of kings, replaced it with the supremacy of a parliament to which only landed men could vote.
The revolutions in the United States and France, and their accompanying declarations of rights, did start a process of articulating and specifying what the rights of individuals could be, but were hedged in by political compromises (slavery remained legal in the United States until 1865) as well as by existing social mores (which downplayed women’s rights by relegating those away from the public sphere into the private).
There was an ebb and flow of rights; not an inexorable upward progression to human rights as we would recognise them today.

2023 marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Was it the
most important legal document of the 20th century, still hale and hearty in the 21st century,
or is it past its prime?

It has been surrounded by myth and misunderstanding. It has been misunderstood,
misquoted and sometimes mismanaged. It has been called racist and misogynistic. Yet it
remains a legal, social and cultural lodestone. How can this be?

This series of 7 podcasts looks into these questions, but rather than being simply a legalistic or philosophical discussion, it looks at the people behind the idea that has become human rights. How ancient are human rights? Are revolutions necessary to create human rights?

Is passion important? What happened in the 20 th century to provide the impulses towards
the Universal Declaration? How was it drafted in the United Nations in a Cold War climate? Is it still relevant today and how is it being used or misused?

The presenter, Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, is an Australian human rights lawyer and former Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. In that capacity he has undertaken human rights training all over the world (including Libya, Nepal and Swaziland/Eswatini), undertaken human rights capacity building programs in Afghanistan and Myanmar, drafted guidelines for human rights fact-finding and reporting, and consults with governments and industry on implementation of human rights and anti-discrimination measures. In 2012 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for services to the international community and human rights.

2023 marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Was it the most important legal document of the 20th century, still hale and hearty in the 21st century, or is it past its prime?
It has been surrounded by myth and misunderstanding. It has been misunderstood, misquoted and sometimes mismanaged. It has been called racist and misogynistic. Yet it remains a legal, social and cultural lodestone. How can this be?
This series of 7 podcasts looks into these questions, but rather than being simply a legalistic or philosophical discussion, it looks at the people behind the idea that has become human rights. How ancient are human rights? Are revolutions necessary to create human rights?
Is passion important? What happened in the 20 th century to provide the impulses towards the Universal Declaration? How was it drafted in the United Nations in a Cold War climate? Is it still relevant today and how is it being used or misused?
The presenter, Dr Phillip Tahmindjis, is an Australian human rights lawyer and former Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. In that capacity he has undertaken human rights training all over the world (including Libya, Nepal and Swaziland/Eswatini), undertaken human rights capacity building programs in Afghanistan and Myanmar, drafted guidelines for human rights fact-finding and reporting, and consults with governments and industry on implementation of human rights and anti-discrimination measures. In 2012 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for services to the international community and human rights.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT 75: LAME OR LUMINOUS?

Revolutionary or Evolutionary? Were Revolutions Necessary to Produce Human Rights?

This episode considers the relevance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
today, in spite of the political compromises which surrounded its drafting, resulting in
ambiguous norms which rely on domestic legal systems for meaning as well as
effective implementation.
As the previous episodes have shown, impulses towards individual rights and
freedoms have always been conflicting and conflicted, and have never exhibited a
consistent, linear, upward development. Human dignity as expressed as rights to
freedom and equality has never been an immutable concept, and is not so now.
If so, how useful can the Declaration be today?
This episode focuses on three facts: the contribution of the Declaration to the
processes of human rights; its contribution to coping with today’s human rights
flashpoints; and its relevance in addressing new horizons in international law.
The episode contains further excerpts of the interview the presenter conducted with
John Humphrey, the Canadian scholar who constructed the initial draft of the
Declaration, as well as interviews with Ambassador Hans Corell (the former UN
Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs) and with the Hon Michael Kirby (former
Justice of the High Court of Australia).

This episode considers the relevance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights today, in spite of the political compromises which surrounded its drafting, resulting in ambiguous norms which rely on domestic legal systems for meaning as well as effective implementation. As the previous episodes have shown, impulses towards individual rights and freedoms have always been conflicting and conflicted, and have never exhibited a consistent, linear, upward development. Human dignity as expressed as rights to freedom and equality has never been an immutable concept, and is not so now. If so, how useful can the Declaration be today? This episode focuses on three facts: the contribution of the Declaration to the processes of human rights; its contribution to coping with today’s human rights flashpoints; and its relevance in addressing new horizons in international law. The episode contains further excerpts of the interview the presenter conducted with John Humphrey, the Canadian scholar who constructed the initial draft of the Declaration, as well as interviews with Ambassador Hans Corell (the former UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs) and with the Hon Michael Kirby (former Justice of the High Court of Australia).

The Universal Declaration of Human of Human Rights Today: Can it still be relevant in the 21st Century?

This episode describes the drafting process of the Universal Declaration within the United Nations. It was fundamentally different from its eighteenth-century antecedents in that the process involved every UN member, myriad Non-Governmental Organisations and dozens of highly committed individuals.

However, there was opposition to it (from the UN Secretary-General down) and debates became fractious in the climate of the Cold War. This episode contains parts of an interview with John Humphrey, the Canadian Head of the Human Rights Division within the UN Secretariat and reputedly the author of the initial draft of the Declaration.

The aim was to provide common grounds for agreement – a synthesis of world views – and the compromises involved produced a document containing a productive ambiguity. The document that resulted was revolutionary as it re-aligned the normative concept of international law which would no longer be the sole province of state sovereignty, but it was not the product of a revolution.
The final vote in the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, produced no votes against the Declaration, although there were 8 abstentions. There was not unanimity. But it heralded a vision of humans and humanity and forever changed the political debate at international level.

This episode describes the drafting process of the Universal Declaration within the United Nations. It was fundamentally different from its eighteenth-century antecedents in that the process involved every UN member, myriad Non-Governmental Organisations and dozens of highly committed individuals.
However, there was opposition to it (from the UN Secretary-General down) and debates became fractious in the climate of the Cold War. This episode contains parts of an interview with John Humphrey, the Canadian Head of the Human Rights Division within the UN Secretariat and reputedly the author of the initial draft of the Declaration.
The aim was to provide common grounds for agreement – a synthesis of world views – and the compromises involved produced a document containing a productive ambiguity. The document that resulted was revolutionary as it re-aligned the normative concept of international law which would no longer be the sole province of state sovereignty, but it was not the product of a revolution. The final vote in the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, produced no votes against the Declaration, although there were 8 abstentions. There was not unanimity. But it heralded a vision of humans and humanity and forever changed the political debate at international level.

The Universal Declaration: A Productive Ambiguity

While the 19th century had seen some advances in rights for people (the abolition of the slave trade; protection of people in times of war), they were advances for specific groups of people rather than for all human beings.

At the start of the 20th century there were several organisations from many parts of the world which were concerned about rights. These were the initiatives of concerned
individuals rather than governments.

After the devastation of World War I, a truly inter-governmental organisation was set up: the League of Nations. It achieved several advances for rights, such as for minorities and workers, but again the focus was on specific groups rather than for everyone universally. Also, the fact that the United States never became a member of the League was a distinct drawback in its effectiveness.

After the Second World War, advances in technology meant that people all over the world could see in newsreels the horrors perpetrated by totalitarianism. This helped change the international mood to one in favour of rights for everyone. But when the United Nations was established its Charter contained references to human rights but no definition of them.

The major powers with veto power in the Security Council were more concerned about world peace and stability than human rights. But the General Assembly had the power to discuss any matter under the UN Charter and recommend action.

The seeds had been sewn for the development of human rights – but again the principal instigators and drivers of this were committed individuals, rather than governments, who would help bring about a social and legal phenomenon. 

While the 19th century had seen some advances in rights for people (the abolition of the slave trade; protection of people in times of war), they were advances for specific groups of people rather than for all human beings.
At the start of the 20th century there were several organisations from many parts of the world which were concerned about rights. These were the initiatives of concerned individuals rather than governments.
After the devastation of World War I, a truly inter-governmental organisation was set up: the League of Nations. It achieved several advances for rights, such as for minorities and workers, but again the focus was on specific groups rather than for everyone universally. Also, the fact that the United States never became a member of the League was a distinct drawback in its effectiveness.
After the Second World War, advances in technology meant that people all over the world could see in newsreels the horrors perpetrated by totalitarianism. This helped change the international mood to one in favour of rights for everyone. But when the United Nations was established its Charter contained references to human rights but no definition of them.
The major powers with veto power in the Security Council were more concerned about world peace and stability than human rights. But the General Assembly had the power to discuss any matter under the UN Charter and recommend action.
The seeds had been sewn for the development of human rights – but again the principal instigators and drivers of this were committed individuals, rather than governments, who would help bring about a social and legal phenomenon.

Revolutionary or Evolutionary? Were Revolutions Necessary to Produce Human Rights?

In 1 playlist(s)

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT 75: LAME OR LUMINOUS?

Social links

Recent clips