关于《世界人权宣言》：你有什么问题？
联合国《世界人权宣言》在2023年12月将满75岁。瑞士资讯将借此机会制作一个特别系列报道，旨在探讨：这一历史性文件的重要性，它是如何保障民主发展的，以及目前其普遍适用性受到的质疑。
我们很想知道你对此有哪些感兴趣的问题。你想进一步了解《世界人权宣言》哪些方面？希望我们从哪个角度展开探讨？期待你的参与。
阅读文章 《世界人权宣言》如何致力于改变世界？
《世界人权宣言》是一份非常重要的文件，已得到世界上大多数国家的批准，目的是保护一个人一生的尊严。该宣言强调了大多数必须尊重的人权，不论其性别、种族、宗教、肤色、政治派别等，任何人都不应被剥夺。然而，不幸的是，有些国家违反了《宣言》的规定，无视这些条款，认为自己凌驾于一切法律之上，没有人能追究它们的责任。
الإعلان العالمي لِحقوق الإنسان وَثيقةٌ مُهِمَّةٌ للغايَة صادَقت عليها أغلبية دول العالم من أجل حمايَة كرامَة الإنسان في حياته، و قد ابرَزَ هذا الإعلان مُعظَم حقوق الإنسان التي يجِب احترامُها و عدَم حِرمان أيَّ شخصٍ مِنها بِغضِّ النظر عن جِنسِه أو عِرقِه أو دينه أو لَوْنِه أو انتمائه السياسي و ما إلى ذلك... و لكن، للأسف هُناك بعض الدول التي تنْتهكُ بُنود هذا الإعلان و تَضرِبُ بها عَرضَ الحائط و تعتبِر نفسَها فوق كلّ القوانين، و لا أحدَ يستطيع مُحاسَبَتَها.
《世界人权宣言》是一份30点文件，其中包括保护所有人的尊严的所有权利。然而，这项《世界宣言》并未在世界上许多国家适用。“第三世界” 的许多民族尽管拥有巨额财富，但仍遭受极端贫困。这些国家的人民还被剥夺了言论自由和对执政当局政策的批评，因为这些当局是独裁者，不信民主、自由、社会正义或公民权利。生活在贫困、无知、不受边缘化和排斥之中的人。
الإعلان العالمي لحقوق الإنسان وثيقة من 30 بنْداً تتضمّن جميع الحقوق الخاصّة بحفظ كرامة جميع بني البشر، إلّا أنّ هذا الإعلان العالميّ لا يُطبّق في العديد من دول العالم، فهُناك شعوب عديدة في العالم "الثالث" ترزح تحت براثِن الفقر المُدقع، رغم توفُّر بلدانها على ثروات هائلة. كما أنّ شعوب هذه البلدان محرومة من حرية التعبير و انتقاد سياسة السلطات الحاكمة لأن هذه السلطات مُستبِدّة لا تؤمن لا بالديمقراطيّة و لا بالحريّات و لا بالعدالة الاجتماعيّة و لا بحقوق المواطنين. شعوبٌ تعيش الفقر و الجهل و عدم التهميش و الإقصاء.
为什么美国宪法在保护人权和人民权利方面如此薄弱？它几乎没有公民和政治权利，几乎没有经济和社会权利，也没有人民权利？美国声称要为其他国家带来自由和自 由，为什么美国宪法却成了世界其他国家的不良榜样？
Why is the US Constitution so weak in protecting human and peoples' rights? It has few civil and political rights, hardly any economic and social rights, and no peoples' rights? How come the US Constitution is such a poor example for the rest of the world when the USA professes to want to being freedom and liberty to others?
世界人权宣言》主要是以古巴和巴拿马的草案为基础的，这是真的吗？美国最初的草案只包括言论自由权？
Is it true that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on mainly on drafts by Cuba and Panama? And that the initial USA draft included only the right to freedom of expression?
恕我直言，美国宪法是最好的，我认为。
Respectfully, the U.S. Constitution is preferrable, imo.
你在开玩笑吧？就保护个人或人民权利而言，美国宪法是世界上最薄弱的宪法之一。在保护民主方面，问问前任总统就知道效果如何了。它不是一部糟糕的宪法，只是太旧了，过时了，亟待整修。
You're joking right? The US Constitution is one of the weakest Constitutions in the world in terms of protecting individuals or peoples' rights. And in terms of protecting democracy, just ask the former President how that has worked. It's not a bad constitution, just too old, out of date, and in disperate need of a refurbishing.
几年前，我参加了一个关于人权的课程，世界各地的学员可以发布问题并进行讨论。 当时，我贴出的问题没有人回答。 我想在这里发布同样的问题：
有这么多关于权利的文章，与这些权利相关的人的责任在哪里，是什么？
我希望从这个论坛上了解的另一个问题是，权利是否应该有限制？ 如果有，这些限制是什么？
@thomasgray引用了美国的《权利法案》，它鼓励自私的思维和 "我优先 "的态度。 至少在五十年中，一个又一个的例子证明了这一点。 贷款的学生中，有不少人并不打算偿还，永远不会。 现在，政府将免除这些债务。 这是否教学生不负责任？
世界人权宣言》在当时是令人向往的。 我有保留地庆祝它。 对其普遍性的质疑让我对一个更负责任的世界的未来充满希望。
I took a course a couple of years ago on Human Rights where participants around the world can post questions and discuss them. At the time, I posted the question that no one answered. I would like to post the same question here:
With so many articles on rights, where and what are the human responsibilities associated with these rights?
Another couple of questions that I look forward to learn from this forum is, should there be limit(s) to the rights? If so, what are these limits?
@thomasgray cited the US Bill of Rights, it encourages selfish thinking an a "me first" attitude. That is true as demonstrated by examples after examples in at least five decades. Students take out loans and not insigniticant number have no intention to repay, ever. Now, the government would forgive the loads. Does that teach students not to be responsible?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was aspiring at the time. I celebrate it with reservation. Questioning its universal character gives me hope for the future of a more responsible world.
你提出的关于责任的问题很好。但请看构成《国际人权宪章》的所有三项文书（《世界人权宣言》、《公民及政治权利国际公约》和《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》）的序言。所有这些文书都谈到了个人的责任。遗憾的是，它们只在不具法律约束力的序言中提到了个人的责任。更令人沮丧的是，当联合国在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代起草所谓的《人权维护者宣言》时，古巴等国引入个人责任的努力遭到了美国、澳大利亚和其他西欧及其他国家集团的严厉抨击。不幸的是，西欧和其他国家集团如此狭隘，因为他们本可以大大推进人权保护，他们采纳了《人权维护者宣言》通过之前几位联合国专家建议的对个人责任的理解。如果你想找到最进步的人权和人民权利文书，请看看非洲通过的一些文书。
Your questions about responsibilities is great one. But look at the preambles of all three instruments and make up the International Bill of Human Rights (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights). All of these instruments speak about responsibilities of individuals. Unfortunately, they only do so in the non-legally binding preambles. More frustratingly, when the UN drafted what is known as a Human Rights Defenders' Declaration in the 1980s and 1990s, efforts by States like Cuba to introduce individual responsibilities or harshly rebuked by the United States Australia and other Western European and Others Group States. It was unfortunate the Western European and Others Group was so narrowminded as they could have significantly advance the protection of human rights and they adopted an understanding of individual responsibilities that had been suggested by several United Nations experts before the Human Rights Defender's Declaration was adopted. If you want to find the most progressive human and peoples' rights instruments look at some of those adopted in Africa.
一个新的主题如何？
How about a new subject???
它本应是一份责任宣言。就像美国的《权利法案》一样，它鼓励自私的思维和 "我优先 "的态度。如果该文件规定了政府和个人对他人行为的基本期望，我们可能会有一个既关心我们周围的人又关心我们自己的社会。
It should have been a Declaration of Responsibilities. Like the US Bill of Rights, it encourages selfish thinking and a “me first” attitude. If instead the document laid out basic expectations of behaviour towards others by governments and individuals, we may have a society that cares as much about those around us as we do about ourselves.
记得美国人埃莉诺-罗斯福曾担任起草《世界人权宣言》的联合国人权委员会主席。虽然她支持人权，但她是从不干涉而非责任的角度来看待人权的。换句话说，她认为如果国家不干涉个人的生活，所有个人都将享有人权。我们今天知道，如果国家不确保某些人权，特别是那些更易受伤害的人的人权，他们就会被剥夺人权。不幸的是，美国在促进人权方面的记录与其在过去 75 年中侵犯人权的行为相去甚远。也许更有价值的问题是，美国和其他国家如何加强《世界人权宣言》，并努力确保世界各地人民的人权和人民的权利。
Remember American Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UN Human Rights Commission that was drafting the UDHR. While she supported human rights she viewed then from the perspective of non-intervention, not responsibility. In other words, She thought that if the state did not interfere with the lives of individuals all individuals would have human rights. We know today, that if the State does not secure some human rights, especially to those who are more vulnerable, they will be denied human rights. Unfortunately, the United States record of promoting human rights, doesn't come close to its actions violating human rights in the last 75 years. Perhaps the more valuable question ask is how can the United States and other countries enhance the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strive to secure human and peoples' rights for people everywhere, today.
瑞士人多年来取得了巨大的成就，但仍然让我感到恼火，因为人类的基本需求之一，即对住所的要求在很大程度上仍然没有得到充分解决，为了澄清这一说法，我首先观察了苏黎世和洛桑的建筑研究所，而且我相信巴塞尔也是世界级的学习机构，但被动式太阳能设计原则并不是基本城市规划制度中的固有要求，而这一制度必须先于建筑环境、考虑到节能和减少环境影响是可以实现的，为什么瑞士或联合国不能为建筑环境定义一个更好的标准，让我们不要忘记人们花了很大一部分时间来追求住所/家？,让我们面对现实吧，如果瑞士要制定一个更好的标准，至少它可以得到公平的审查。
The swiss for all the great achievements over the years still annoy me in that one of the basic requirements of humans, the requirement for shelter remains largely an unaddressed in full matter, to clarify the statement I first observe the architectural institutes of zurich and lausanne and also I believe basel that are world class learning institutions but the passive solar design principles are not an inherent requirement in the fundamental urban planning regime which must precede the built environment, given the energy saving and reduced environmental impact that is achievable why is it the swiss or the un cant come out and define a better standard for the built enviroment, lets not forget people spend a large portion of their lives in the pursuit of the shelter/ home?, and lets face it if the swiss where to recount a better standard at least it would recieve a fair review
它们究竟是什么？
是否有一个链接到他们!!!!
我很抱歉，但实际上应该让我们知道你想让我们回应什么，而不是让我们蒙在鼓里！!
但是，无论它们是什么，似乎大多数政客都是在它们周围跳舞，当需要获得选票或掩盖一些无效的东西时，他们就会像传家宝一样拿出来。
此外，一个有权力的政党可以把一些东西带进来，下一届政府也可以通过它们来进行....，这意味着它们是政治性的，而不是由所有公民投票决定的。
What are they actually?
Is there a link to them!!!!
I'm sorry but it would make sense to actually let us know what you want us to respond to instead of leaving us in the dark!!
But, whatever THEY are, it seems that most poltiicians dance around them mostly and bring them out like the family heirlooms when it is required to get votes or cover up something that isn't working.
Also, one Party that has power can bring something in and the next government through them out.... that means they are political rather than voted on by all citizens...
您好，感谢您的评论。如果您想了解更多有关世界人权宣言及其诞生过程的信息，我们为您准备了这篇报道：
当然，您也可以在联合国网站上阅读实际文件：
https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
Hello and thanks for your comment. If you want to learn more about the universal declaration and how it came to be, we've got this story for you to read:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/how-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-aimed-to-change-the-world/48304778
You can of course also read the actual document on the UN's website:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
除非世界上每个人都尊重每个人，除非富人和权贵不再虐待穷人，除非不再有冲突或战争，除非罪犯不再是罪犯，除非赢得禁毒战争，除非政治家把选民放在第一位，否则《人权宣言》就不值得在纸上写。
Until everyone in the world treats everyone with respect, until the rich and powerful stop mistreating the poor, until there are no more conflicts or wars, until criminals stop being criminals, until the war on drugs is won, until politicians put their voters first, the Declaration of Human Rights is not worth the paper it is written on.
我所知道的是，你的权利和我的权利是平等的，我的权利开始时，你的权利就结束了。非常简单。
All I know is that your rights are equal as mine and they end when mine start. Very simple.
1963年联合国大会主席穆罕默德-扎弗鲁拉-汗爵士在他的《伊斯兰教与人权》一书中写道，伊斯兰教在1400多年前就提出了 "欢 "的权利。见https://www.alislam.org/book/islam-human-rights/
In his book 'Islam and Human Rights', Sir Mohammad Zafrullah Khan, President of the UN General Assembly 1963, writes how Islam brought forward Huan Rights more than 1400 years ago. See https://www.alislam.org/book/islam-human-rights/
2023年2月，3名以个人身份为联合国服务的“少数族群议题特别报告员”以个人名义发表报告声称，中国通过寄宿学校在“文化、宗教和语言上同化藏族人民，影响了约100万名藏族儿童”。一些西方媒体纷纷转发，抨击中国西藏自治区的寄宿制学校。
藏族孩子们是否被迫参加寄宿制学校？孩子们在课堂中又是否面临“同化教育”？学校的伙食住宿的真实条件到底如何？
"序言
鉴于对人类家庭所有成员的固有尊严及其平等和不可剥夺的权利的承认，是世界自由、正义与和平的基础，"
.
在过去的75年里，所有的冲突都出了什么问题？
在乌克兰和苏丹出了什么问题？
"Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
.
What went wrong in all the conflicts in the last 75 years?
What went wrong in the Ukraine and in Sudan?
非常好的问题！
尽管有了联合国，有了人权，但如果采用人权会给人类带来优势，那么人类的本性还需要时间来发展。 与此同时，世界仍然是强权即公理，美国的霸权外交政策就是明证。 平心而论，如果将过去 75 年的冲突次数与之前 75 年的冲突次数进行对比，毫无疑问，我们取得了进步，无论这种进步是多么微小。 我会让博士生的论文来回答第一个问题。
与此同时，我当然也从杰弗里-萨克斯（Jeffery Sachs）最近关于乌克兰出了什么问题的文章中学到了一些东西。 以下是他的文章： https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace 请阅读并决定您同意和/或不同意的观点。
当我有时间深入研究苏丹的情况，而不仅仅是部落战争时，我会再回来的。
Excellent questions!
Despite the UN, together with Human Rights, human nature will take time to evolve if the adoption of Human Rights will give it an advantage. Meanwhile the world is still operating on might is right, as attested by American Hegemonic foreign policy. In all fairness, if one contrasts the number of conflicts in the last 75 years to previous 75 years, there is no doubt of progress, however slight that might be. I will let the first question by answered by Ph.D. student's dessertation.
Meanwhile, I certainly learned from Jeffery Sachs' recent article of what went wrong in the Ukraine. Here is his article: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace Have a read and decide what your agree and/or disagree.
When I get around to dive deep into the case of Sudan beyond just tribal war, I'll return.
联合国人权宣言处于一种需要更新的状态，并使其在欧洲的难民问题上发挥作用。 特别是，《都柏林第三议定书》的做法有悖于联合国普遍人权宣言。 例如，一个已经成为欧盟新成员的国家，如克罗地亚，对难民施加了各种不人道的虐待和酷刑。 在欧洲中部，克罗地亚正经历着一场巨大的移民悲剧。 这种问题需要在普世法律的框架内，在联合国《世界人权宣言》的框架内加以处理。 我祝愿你工作成功，祝你有一个愉快的一天。
The UN declaration of human rights is in a state that needs to be updated and made operational on the approach to refugees in Europe. In particular, the le Dublin III protocol has a praxis that goes against the UN universal declaration of human rights. For example, a country that has become a new member of the European Union, such as Croatia, inflicts all kinds of inhumane ill-treatment and torture on refugees. In the middle of Europe, Croatia is experiencing a great migrant tragedy. Such problems need to be dealt with within the framework of universal law, within the framework of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wish you success in your work and have a nice day.
感谢您的评论。大赦国际等非政府组织确实报告了克罗地亚和其他国家虐待移民和寻求庇护者的情况。确保各国尊重其签署的条约是极其困难的。您关于更新《世界人权宣言》的观点很有意思--您是否有具体的想法？
Thank you for your comment. NGOs like Amnesty International have indeed reported on abuses against migrants and asylum-seekers in Croatia and other countries. Making sure countries respect the treaties they sign is extremely difficult. Your point about updating the UDHR is interesting – did you have something specific in mind?
在西班牙语中有一句话...... "Papel aguanta todo"，即在纸上你可以打印任何东西。最初的意图是值得称赞的，但现在的情况就不一样了--交战国、独裁者对它进行了怎样的改造。
There is a saying in Spanish...'papel aguanta todo' ie on paper you can print anything. The original intention is laudable, not so what has become of it - what warring countries, dictatorships have made of it.
无家可归者、无家可归者和穷人 —— 以及那些在富裕国家被运气背叛的人 —— 是否指望人性，有权过上体面的生活？问问就行了。
هل المشردون / الذين بلا مأوى / والفقراء - ومن خانهم الحظ في البلدان الغنية محسوبون على الانسانية ولهم حق في الحياة الكريمة . فقط تسائل .
那些既无心也无愿给那些来自自己血脉的人更好的生活的人，甚至值得花时间考虑他们的立场或情况吗？
Are those that have neither the heart or the desire to give a better life to those that come from their own blood, worthy even of the time to consider their position or circumstances?
对一些国家来说，无家可归是一种生活方式的选择。 对其他国家来说，这是一种受害者心态。 在我所见过的国家中，很少有例外情况，但也有很多计划似乎使情况变得更糟。 不幸的是，这是自由民主的不良结果。
任何有兴趣了解更多信息的人，都可以阅读一本名为《旧金山乡巴佬》（San FranSicko）的书，这本书是由一位eX进步自由主义者撰写的，他对旧金山二十多年来实施的失败计划进行了研究。 旧金山并没有变得更好，而是更加病态了。
相比之下，正如联合国所承认的，中国成功地使其最后一亿公民摆脱了联合国定义的贫困。 这是何等的讽刺？
For some countries, some homeless is a life style choice. For others, it is a mindset of victimhood. There are very few exceptions that I have run across, but plenty of programs that appeared to make the situation worse. It is unfortunate an undesirable outcome of liberal democracy.
Anyone interested in learning more, read the book called San FranSicko, written by an eX Progressive Liberal who studied the failure of programs that have been instituted in San Francisco for more than two decades. SF has not gotten better, but more sick.
In contrast, as UN recognized, that China succeeded in lifting its last 100million citizen from UN's definition of poverty. What an irony?
因贫困而无家可归的人和吸毒成瘾者之间有很大的区别。贫困不是一种病态的心理状况，而是一种社会状况。例如，一个月的议会收入足以养活十名无家可归者一整年。如果该州能够解雇一名员工，它将雇用并用该雇员的工资帮助数十个贫困家庭。
هناك فارق كبير بين المشردون بسبب الفقر , والمدمنون على المخدرات . فالفقر ليس حالة مرضية , ولا نفسية بل ظرفا اجتماعيا - ومثالا * مدخول برلماني واحدا في شهر كافيا لاعالة عشرة مشردون لعام كامل . اذا بامكان الدولة التخلي عن موظفا واحدا فتعين , وتساعد العشرات من العوائل الفقيرة براتب هذا الموظف .
谁来完成被解雇的国家工作人员的工作？反正我们的文件程序已经很长了，难道你还想让它们变得更长吗？
And who will complete the work of the fired state worker? Our paper procedures are long anyways, do you want to make them even longer?
如果你的意思是被驱逐的德国人正在工作！...没有它，国家合同就会被打破，让穷人享受贫困。问候
ان كان مقصودك ان الرلماني المطرود كان يعمل ! ... ولسوف يفرط عقد الدولة بدونه , فلندع الفقراء ينعمون بفقرهم . تحياتي
其实没什么。世界各地的政治家对它的解释是如此不同。越来越多的新事物被创造出来，试图使自己合法化，从而改变人权的含义。我们仍然有性别工资差距，这不是很人性化，或者我们努力给妇女这个词下一个非循环定义。我的意思是，这本书并没有发挥作用，也没有反映出人们的努力。它是一本没有人遵守的童话书。
Nothing really. It interpreted so differently by politicians all over the world. And new and new things get created which try to legalise itself hence changing the meaning of human right. We still have a gender pay gap, not very humain or we struggle to give non circular definition to a word woman. I mean, this book just does not work or reflect the efforts of the people. It is a fairytale book which no one follows.
然而，无可辩驳的事实是，我们今天的战斗是为了更好的明天，问题是，尽管我们喜欢巴塞尔的乌鸦，但有这么多以死者的眼睛为食的乌鸦，以至于它们无法飞翔，对于这样一个小小的变化来说，代价太高了，现任者往往是更好的明天的问题所在。
The irrefutable fact remains however that the standard is we fight today for a better tomorrow, the issue is that much as we love the ravens of basel to have so many so fat from feeding on the eyes of the dead that they could not fly is a high price for such a small change, the incumbent is often the problem with the better tomorrow
但是没有人遵守这本书，任何一天，任何一个国家的总统都可以说，我们不再像俄罗斯那样签署这本书了，就这样了。你会怎么做？派军队去抓一个总统？这是很可笑的。我曾多次担任联合国和红十字会的时间线记录员。我不再向任何一个庞大的组织捐款，因为他们毫无用处。他们的大部分钱都花在了花哨的会议上，有一半的代表甚至没有发言权，他们坐飞机来，我们开着奔驰送他们，最后他们的谈话都是 "暗示性的"。
But no one follows this book, any day any president of a country can say that we no longer signed up for this book like Russia did and that's it. What will you do? Send army to capture a president ? It is laughable. I have been a time line notter for un and red cross many time. I no longer donate money to any of thous huge organisations because they are useless. Most money they spend on fancy meeting where half of the delegates don't even speak up, they fly in and we drive them in Mercedes and in the end all their talk is " suggestive".
加入对话