Where was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed?

Answer 1

hello! sir i want to ask how many country has sign in universal declaretion of human rights ? harish chandra m.phil inp cipod jnu Answer: Well, i dnt knw in PEOPLE, but i knw 48 countries signed the UDHR

Answer 2

"Following" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could mean either how many countries have ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights like a treaty, or it could mean how many countries have basically perfect records of compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless of which of these two senses it meant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on "all countries of the world", its rights are declared at the outset of the document as "inalienable" and therefore can't be lost or taken away. But of course, rights can, and valuable rights quite often are, VIOLATED. A violation of a right, even a systematic one does not mean the right doesn't exist. If it did, there would be no right against genocide, the systematic killing of an entire group or race of people, because that is surely a systematic violation of the rights in the Universal Declaration, but the violation of the right does nothing to alter its existence.

48 countries originally ratified the document (of the 58 countries that were members of the UN at the time), including the United States. Essentially all of the world's countries have ratified it since then, but in any event its core provisions are binding international law regardless of the existence of treaty ratification or state of war, including the prohibitions against slavery, genocide, torture, and cruel inhuman treatment of war prisoners.

In terms of violations, some are secretive, only a few are open. Amnesty International estimates that torture occurs in over 150 countries. However, it appears that among leading nations only the United States openly passes laws or policies that purport to legalize or normalize either torture or cruel or inhuman treatment of prisoners. By definition, and by the US own precedents at Nuremburg and elsewhere, international law trumps in the end. Often, the problem is the insufficient attention paid to this reality by nations, who instead focus only on their internal laws and concerns. Yet it is clear under international law that even in time of war, a "lawfully made" order to violate human rights may not be followed, if the one who executes that order wishes to avoid liability in a future war crimes trial, if one ever occurs. The question is much like the question "How many people follow the law?" It's a question filled with issues about the scope of "law" and the ambiguities alluded to above.