2023年AdoptingtheDeclarationofHumanRights.docx

此资料由网络收集而来，如有侵权请告知上传者立即删除。资料共分享，我们负责传递知识。 Adopting the Declaration of Human Rights 　　eleanor roosevelt 　　on the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights 　　delivered 9 december 1948 in paris, france 　　演讲者简介：安娜;埃莉诺;罗斯福(anna eleanor roosevelt，1884年10月11日-1962年11月7日)，美国第32任总统富兰克林;德拉诺;罗斯福的妻子，曾为美国第一夫人。第二次世界大战后她出任美国首任驻联合国大使，并主导起草了联合国的〞;世界人权宣言〞;。她是女性主义者，亦大力提倡保护人权。 　　mr. president, fellow delegates: 　　the long and meticulous study and debate of which this universal declaration of human rights is the product means that it reflects the composite views of the many men and governments who have contributed to its formulation. not every man nor every government can have what he wants in a document of this kind. there are of course particular provisions in the declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied. i have no doubt this is true of other delegations, and it would still be true if we continued our labors over many years. taken as a whole the delegation of the united states believes that this is a good document -- even a great document -- and we propose to give it our full support. the position of the united states on the various parts of the declaration is a matter of record in the third committee. i shall not burden the assembly, and particularly my colleagues of the third committee, with a restatement of that position here. 　　i should like to comment briefly on the amendments proposed by the soviet delegation. the language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the same as the amendments which were offered by the soviet delegation in committee and rejected after exhaustive discussion. substantially the same amendments have been previously considered and rejected in the human rights commission. we in the united states admire those who fight for their convictions, and the soviet delegation has fought for their convictions. but in the older democracies we have learned that sometimes we bow to the will of the majority. in doing that, we do not give up our convictions. we continue sometimes to persuade, and eventually we may be successful. but we know that we have to work together and we have to progress. so, we believe that when we have made a good fight, and the majority is against us, it is perhaps better tactics to try to cooperate. 　　i feel bound to say that i think perhaps it is somewhat of an imposition on this assembly to have these amendments offered again here, and i am confident that they will be rejected without debate. 　　the first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which committee 3 decided required further study, and has recommended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the economic and social council and the human rights commission. as set out in the soviet amendment, this provision clearly states &group,& and not &individual,& rights. 　　the soviet amendment to article 20 is obviously a very restrictive statement of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. it sets up standards which would enable any state practically to deny all freedom of opinion and expression without violating the article. it introduces the terms &democratic view,& &democratic systems,& &democratic state,& and &fascism,& which we know all too well from debates in this assembly over the past two years on warmongering and related subjects are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretations. 　　the statement of the soviet delegate here tonight is a very good case in point on this. the soviet amendment of article 22 introduces new elements into the article without improving the committed text and again introduces specific reference to &discrimination.& as was repeatedly pointed out in committee 3, the question of discrimination is comprehensively covered in article 2 of the declaration, so that its restatement elsewhere is completely unnecessary and also has the effect of weakening the comprehensive principles stated in article 2. the new article proposed by the soviet delegation is but a restatement of state obligation, which the soviet delegation attempted to introduce into practically every article in the declaration. it would convert the declaration into a document stating obligations on states, thereby changing completely its character as a statement of principles to serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the united nations. 　　the soviet proposal for deferring consideration of the declaration to the 4th session of the assembly requires no comment. an identical text was rejected in committee 3 by a vote of 6 in favor and 26 against. we are all agreed, i am sure, that the declaration, which has been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time, must be approved by this assembly at this session. 　　certain provisions of the declaration are stated in such broad terms as to be acceptable only because of the provisions in article 30 providing for li