Where, after, all do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, and equal dignity without discrimination.
Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.
—Eleanor Roosevelt
When politicians and others discuss human rights, a question frequently arises as to the actual depth of their knowledge about human rights. Do they have in mind a specific document, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, to which provision(s) are they referring? Many people simply throw out the term human rights with no real understanding of what it means. Because the nature of human rights and what those rights encompass can be complicated, a simplistic view of human rights often results in a misunderstanding of what they actually represent.
To begin a detailed study of human rights, the inevitable starting point is the Universal Declaration, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and applicable to all countries joining that body (UN 1948). With the UN’s adoption of the declaration, a new historical era began in how nations viewed circumstances both inside and outside their borders. While the declaration had no immediate impact on domestic or international policies, over time the human rights principles contained in the declaration have frequently affected governmental policies and individual acts. Thus to say that human rights are simply words on paper does not reflect reality.
Like any basic law or constitution, the Universal Declaration is a living document, subject to interpretations that continually change with the passage of time. But many of the declaration’s provisions contain fundamental freedoms and rights that would clearly apply to any set of circumstances.
Americans Lack Knowledge About the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
It appears odd that many Americans know little about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the United States had much to do with its founding. Doug Pibel, the managing editor of Yes! magazine, made this point in a special edition of the magazine asking, Is the U.S. Ready for Human Rights?
I am a child of an innocent time and place—the Great Plains in the golden years of the mid-20th century. I learned that the United States is the land of freedom and opportunity: the country that shows the way to rights for all. . . .
But as I’ve learned our troubled history and seen our troubled present, I have come to question that story. I take no pleasure in my doubts. . . . The ideals I learned as a child are good ones: equality, prosperity for all, government by the people, and commitment to the common good. . . .
Where are those ideals most clearly stated? The Bill of Rights is a good start. But the broadest statement is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. It’s been described as one of the most important documents in human history, been translated into hundreds of languages, and formed the basis for national constitutions, yet it is little known in the United States.
The UDHR was, in large part, a product of American idealism. President Truman appointed Eleanor Roosevelt to head the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. Many considered her high-minded but naïve, and hardly up to the task. But her diplomatic skills and tough-mind moral leadership held the process together until the Declaration was completed. (Pibel 2007, 1)
Pibel does not give up hope that in the United States, knowledge of the Universal Declaration will increase. He asks whether it is idealistic to think that we can make all the rights in the UDHR a reality. “We think not, because one true part of our national story is this: we cherish those ideals we learned as children. History shows that rights are not granted from above, they are claimed by the people. As we work to claim rights for all of us, we take the next steps on our historical journey” (Pibel 2007, 1).
The Purpose of the Universal Declaration
The direct impetus for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the horrors perpetrated in Nazi Germany in the name of racial purity and superiority. Laws in Nazi Germany labeled numerous individuals and groups as non-Germans, undeserving of the rights and benefits granted to citizens. The intent behind these racial purity laws was to exclude those who did not have the “proper” ethnic or religious background from participating in German society. Individuals or groups who spoke out against this discriminatory treatment encountered the wrath of the Nazi government, which tortured and executed many dissidents. Eventually, the Nazi government rounded up Jews and other individuals—including Roma, communists, homosexuals, dissidents, and Asoziale (persons on welfare)—for transport to concentration camps, where many died under German extermination policies. In addition, people with mental illnesses or other disabilities were often killed at hospitals (Hansen 1991; Otto and Sunker 1991; Schnurr 1997). The horrors of Nazi Germany seemed unimaginable, and people all over the world wanted to make sure that they never would happen again.
While Nazi Germany and its genocidal policies against Jews and other groups provided the most immediate rationale for universal rules that would protect vulnerable populations, other factors also played a role. Poverty and unemployment had afflicted many individuals throughout the world during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Should individuals everywhere be entitled to a social security net to help them during hard times? The colonization of African and Asian countries by Europeans also provided fuel for a universal rule against the exploitation of peoples by the more powerful. Should colonized peoples have a right to self-determination? The list of issues concerning the human condition never seemed to end after World War II, and discussion of these issues led inexorably to the need for a broad-based document defining the essence of a human being’s existence. Given the vast cultural and other differences among individuals, what common needs and freedoms should everyone share? The outcome of this intensive soul-searching was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While certainly not perfect, the declaration’s principles provide a worthy foundation for advancing political and social rights that everyone should enjoy, no matter where he or she resides.
The Universal Declaration does not legally bind any nation to enforce the declaration’s human rights. Nor are there formal penalties for nations violating them, but many countries have integrated the human rights specified in the declaration into their own laws. Also, some of the rights in the declaration have become enforceable through customary international law, which means that so many countries have accepted a rule or principle as valid that the rule becomes legally enforceable. In this respect, the declaration has been successful in setting many standards for acceptable conduct in the area of human rights.
One point of contemporary interest concerning the Universal Declaration is its “sexist” nature when viewed from today’s standards (Prigoff 2000). Some references in the declaration refer to man and not woman, even though the issue of gender did receive significant attention by the drafters of the declaration (Morsink 1999). Women delegates involved in drafting the declaration, especially those from Denmark and the Soviet bloc, lobbied strongly for including a woman’s perspective in all areas of human rights. The outcome of this discussion led to the frequent use of words like everyone, all, and no one to avoid sexist implications. While the framers of the declaration let stand the occasional use of man to refer to all individuals, the inclusiveness of the overall language indicates that the declaration applies to everyone, without regard to gender. Nonetheless, where it occurs, male-oriented language in the Universal Declaration would not be acceptable in many countries today. And despite efforts by the drafters to avoid a sexist document, the subsequent defining of human rights has often become a male-oriented process. This male orientation eventually led to a movement to state emphatically that women’s rights are also human rights (discussed further in chapter 5).
Human Rights Watch: Monitor of Human Rights
Various international organizations monitor nations’ compliance with human rights, including those contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A well-known nongovernmental organization, Human Rights Watch, regularly investigates human rights abuses around the world. Founded in 1978, Human Rights Watch does not accept any funding from governments, and its focus is on political and civil human rights.
Human Rights Watch includes annual, up-to-date surveys on compliance with human rights principles around the world, and sadly, the state of affairs does not appear as positive as in previous years:
A government’s respect for human rights must be measured not only by how it treats its own people but also by how it protects rights in its relations with other countries . . . it is a sad fact that when it comes to this international protection of rights, the governments with the clearest vision and strategy are often those that seek to undermine enforcement. The days are past when one would look to Washington, Brussels, or other Western capitals for the initiative in intergovernmental discussions of human rights. Today, those conducting the most energetic diplomacy on human rights are likely to reside in such places as Algiers, Cairo, or Islamabad, with backing from Beijing and Moscow. The problem is that they are pushing in the wrong direction.
These human rights opponents defend the prerogative of governments to do what they want to their people. They hide behind the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and Southern solidarity, but their real aim is to curb criticism of their own human rights abuses or those of their allies and friends. . . .
The reason for their success lies less in the attractiveness of their vision than in the often weak and inconsistent commitment of governments that traditionally stood for the defense of human rights. It is not as if the people of the world are suddenly enamored of dictatorship and repression. Their desire for basic rights remains unchanged. . . . Rather, the vigor of the anti-human rights campaign is, ironically, a testament to the power of the human rights ideal. (Roth 2009, 1)
Even with the 2011 uprisings against dictators in the Middle East, this excerpt from the introduction to a recent Human Rights Watch report still seems valid. Can anyone doubt that those Iranians who demonstrated against their governmental elections in 2009 desired basic human rights to protest and request honest vote counting? The subsequent crackdown on protests by the Iranian government most likely did little to endear most Iranians to the resulting repression. But what authority does a country like the United States have to chastise the Iranian government on human rights?
Many of the traditional defenders of human rights, especially the United States, no longer appear as committed to human rights principles as they did in the past. The dilution of basic political rights and practice of torture by the United States during the endless and often contrived “war on terror” can only have encouraged countries like Iran to ignore fundamental human rights. The economic crisis beginning in 2008 has also led to concerns about the erosion of economic and social rights.
The Human Rights Watch website is essential reading. While not always pleasant to contemplate, the website provides a valuable function: the monitoring of human rights. Without that oversight, the contemporary state of human rights would be even more precarious than it is today.
Specific Provisions of the Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a lengthy document; it contains only a preamble and thirty relatively concise articles. The language used in the declaration tends to be legalistic, which can detract from its acceptance by social workers. But social workers continually encounter laws regulating many aspects of their profession, and the field of human rights, while based on laws, also incorporates many ideals of the social work profession. The following discussion of the Universal Declaration illustrates the strong connection between human rights and social work.
Preamble to the Universal Declaration
The introduction to the Universal Declaration (the preamble) states the general reasons for the declaration. Subsequent articles then list the specific rights for “all members of the human family.” The preamble begins with the following statement:
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.
Every human being is entitled to an inherent dignity, one of the foundations of freedom, justice, and peace. An inherent dignity exists merely by virtue of being human. The other foundation is the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Inalienable rights refer to rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred. These rights exist for everyone, and without them, freedom, justice, and peace in the world could be much more difficult to secure.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
This phrase acknowledges that the horrific experiences of World War II and other “barbarous acts” resulted from the “disregard and contempt” of human rights. Based on the desire never to repeat those experiences, the drafters of the declaration proclaimed that the highest aspiration of the common people is to create a world tolerant of different views, respectful of individual freedoms, and mindful of economic security.
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Without legal enforcement of human rights, the world could again be plunged into chaos. This phrase contemplates respect for human rights by governments through legal frameworks. While this provision envisions legal enforcement, the phrase “human rights should be protected” indicates the nonbinding nature of the declaration.
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
This provision highlights the importance of international relations and the necessity of peaceful interaction. Human rights aim to promote amicable dealings among countries and, by extension, individuals from differing countries.
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Regardless of what has happened in the past, all members of the United Nations agree to the need for human rights. Moreover, they believe in human dignity and the equal rights of men and women. The last part of this provision indicates a desire to improve overall living standards in the context of greater individual freedom. This wording reflects the vagueness of certain concepts, such as freedom. Defining terms like freedom always becomes difficult when different cultures and political systems are involved. Therefore, in this context the declaration does not necessarily mean a U.S. system in which individual freedoms tend to be greater in many respects than in many other countries. The term larger freedom could easily refer to both the United States and Saudi Arabia, with the goal being better social and economic conditions in their governmental systems.
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This phrase highlights a pledge by any member of the United Nations to promote human rights and basic freedoms everywhere. In this statement, the declaration adds the term fundamental freedoms to human rights without specifying those freedoms in later articles. Once again, freedom is a relative concept, and any definition of it must take into account numerous factors, including cultural, economic, political, and social traditions.
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.
A “common” understanding of rights and freedoms plays a key role in realizing universal human rights. Opinions on what human rights and freedoms mean should correlate or at least have some resemblance. This does not mean that every country should define or interpret any particular human right or freedom in the same way. However, all nations must have some common ground for realizing human rights. Otherwise, the Universal Declaration would remain nothing more than a theoretical proposition incapable of being put into practice.
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
This proclamation obligates member states of the United Nations to teach people about and promote human rights. Clearly, if human rights are to mean anything, those rights must be taught in all countries.
This proclamation about education concludes the declaration’s introduction to human rights. The next part, separated into articles, defines the specific rights and goals known as human rights.
Articles of the Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains thirty articles that list the universal rights and goals applicable to everyone. These articles embody human rights that every government and individual should follow, and they also include specific entitlements to rights that every government should strive to fulfill.
ARTICLE 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This article derives from the concept of natural law and natural rights. Unjust acts create inequality. All people are born with the same human status, and because they have reason and a conscience, they should view other individuals as also having the same dignity and entitlement to human rights.
ARTICLE 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
This article specifies an entitlement to all human rights and freedoms without discrimination. At the time of the declaration, this language actually appeared quite radical, in that many countries treated citizens differently on the basis of classification. For instance, in parts of the United States in 1948, whites and blacks often were segregated in their use of bathrooms, drinking fountains, seats in buses, and marriage. How could the United States legitimately subscribe to human rights that contradicted those segregation laws? Other countries also encountered awkward questions about adherence to human rights based on classification. Article 2 reflects the dilemma of many countries in promoting human rights that conflict with past traditions and laws.
The second part of this article emphasizes the universality of human rights. Regardless of an individual’s origins, he or she is entitled to human rights and freedoms, and the political system under which the individual resides must accommodate those rights. Many nations find this universality principle difficult to follow. For example, governments occasionally treat legal immigrant residents differently from citizens so that immigrants will not qualify for certain benefits viewed as human rights (Reichert and Mc-Cormick 1998). Favoring citizens over immigrant residents violates the universality principles, since everyone is entitled to human rights without limitation. Even undocumented or illegal immigrants should be eligible for basic humanitarian care while governments process their cases.
ARTICLE 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.
This human right highlights the sanctity of life and the right to be free in most pursuits and the right to be safe. More precise definitions of liberty and security are difficult. In the United States, liberty and security of person take on a political and civil slant, meaning that government should not interfere with most individual activities or arbitrarily threaten to detain someone. In China, this article could mean that government has a duty to prevent crime and ensure the safety of its residents, even if this means restricting activities that would be allowed in the United States. The different interpretations of this article show why it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of cultural, economic, and political circumstances before accusing a country of violating human rights.
ARTICLE 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their form.
No form of human domination can be more evil than slavery, a human rights violation that has had great impact on U.S. society. Treating another human being as inferior or a piece of property can never be sanctioned. As a human right, the prohibition against slavery or servitude ranks as one of the most important.
ARTICLE 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
This human right emphasizes the right of everyone to be free from torture and extreme methods of punishment or treatment. In the last few years, the topic of torture has risen to the forefront in respect to the so-called war on terror. President George W. Bush and his administration supported the U.S. government’s use of “enhanced interrogation” methods, for the stated reason of obtaining valuable information to keep Americans safe. The proverbial “ticking time bomb” served as one justification for the degrading treatment of terror suspects: if we do not torture the suspect to obtain information, innocent people may die. A person may challenge the usefulness of torture, wondering whether more useful or the same information could have been gained by not torturing. But what cannot be challenged is the clear language of this article forbidding this type of treatment.
The United States may also violate this human right in regard to the death penalty. Many countries around the world have prohibited the death penalty for crimes committed because they view it as inhumane (Human Rights Watch 2009). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) also advocates the abolition of the death penalty, as there is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent to violent crime. In fact, the number of homicides in the United States has risen despite the reinstitution of capital punishment in most states. The abolition of the death penalty would thus bring the United States in line with other modern societies (NASW 2009, 49).
An example of how countries have seriously considered this article of the Universal Declaration involves domestic violence. Only recently have some countries viewed the battering of women as cruel and degrading behavior and, therefore, a violation of this human right. The acceptance of physical violence against women has been particularly prevalent in the private sphere: what goes on behind closed doors is nobody else’s business. Now, however, this separation between the public and private physical abuse of women is disappearing, with special attention to the issue being raised through human rights documents following the Universal Declaration (e.g., CEDAW 1979).
NASW has also specifically addressed the issue of family violence in a human rights context: the acceptance of family violence as a normal way of life, particularly violence against women, children, and animals, is pervasive in American culture. Violence is presented as an acceptable form of behavior in literature, video games, children’s stories, advertising, and radio and television programs (NASW 2009, 142–43). In some cases, bias in regard to sex, race, and class even by social workers themselves help perpetuate the problems of family violence:
Without adequate training, professionals may blame the victims, believing that the wife, child, or elderly individual provokes or in some way is responsible for and contributes to the violence. . . . All social workers should recognize the complex economic, emotional, cultural, and societal factors that keep the family member in the violent situation. (NASW 2009, 142)
NASW supports addressing family violence through research, the development of prevention and intervention programs, and advocacy for adequate laws and funding for protective and treatment services (NASW 2009, 143).
The human rights contained in article 5 touch on important social work values. By addressing the issue of torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and punishment in a human rights context, social workers can be more effective in developing policies to prevent this human rights violation.
ARTICLE 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
ARTICLE 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
This article expands on article 6 by specifically promoting a universal environment of nondiscrimination.
Article 7 resembles equal protection policies in the United States (U.S. Constitution, amend. 14), but it appears to reject any tolerance of discrimination, which is not always the case in the United States. Indeed, U.S. policies may result in the unequal treatment of various groups for which legitimate reasons are given to justify the unequal treatment. Under the human rights article, even if there is a legitimate reason for an action that has a discriminatory effect, that action could violate this human right. To remedy the discriminatory effect, policies would be required to examine how to overcome the discrimination and then to actually address the issue.
ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
This article ensures that everyone has access to courts and other avenues of redress for constitutional and legal violations. NASW supports efforts to protect this human right, especially with respect to immigrants (NASW 2009, 199–200). An earlier NASW policy statement that social workers should oppose federal and state legislative initiatives and actions that discriminate against both legal residents and undocumented individuals has been revised (NASW 2003, 204–5). Instead, the focus now is on the rights of “immigrants,” meaning legal residents.
ARTICLE 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
This article limits governments with respect to criminal prosecution. After coming to power in Germany, the Nazis solidified their grip on the populace by eliminating procedural protections against arbitrary arrest and detention (Hansen 1991; Schnurr 1997). This provision was based on the horrific experiences suffered by victims of the Nazis brought to light while the declaration was being written and was aimed at preventing a similar nightmare.
The practice of detaining “terror suspects” without any type of forum in which the detainees can contest their detention raises comparisons with regimes like that of Nazi Germany. While Americans may feel this practice is justified under the concept of national security, others may disagree.
ARTICLE 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
This human right essentially guarantees to everyone the right to a fair and public hearing or trial, for not only criminal offenses, but also any other proceeding that would affect the individual’s rights and duties. Although the vagueness of the wording does allow different interpretations, at a minimum when an important right is at stake, an individual is entitled to an impartial public hearing.
ARTICLE 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
The first part of this article mimics the well-known phrase in the United States that everyone is innocent of a crime until proven guilty. The second part prohibits the prosecution of acts not considered crimes at the time the crimes were committed. For example, if five years ago there was no criminal penalty for driving seventy-five miles an hour but now there is, then no one who drove seventy-five, five years ago can be brought to trial at this time. Nor may a stricter penalty be imposed on a crime than the penalty existing at the time of the crime. The primary purpose of this human right is to prevent unfair tinkering with laws to prosecute unpopular opponents or individuals.
NASW supports measures that safeguard individuals from unlawful detention and imprisonment (NASW 2009, 51), but in its most recent policy statement, it eliminated reference to a “presumption of innocence” as a basic common law principle (for an earlier statement on the presumption of innocence, see NASW 2006, 48).
ARTICLE 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This human right emphasizes the right to privacy and reputation, especially in the family setting. The United States and other countries have laws to protect private e-mail correspondence, written letters, financial transactions, and other dealings. Courts in most countries also allow redress when an individual’s reputation has been harmed. This type of action is known generally as defamation.
NASW has incorporated elements of this human rights into a policy statement that discusses limits and standards for preserving privacy with clients served by social workers (NASW 2009, 59–61). NASW opposes inappropriate intrusions into the right of privacy, especially in its application to health and human services settings.
ARTICLE 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
An individual has the human right to leave any country and to return to his or her country of citizenship. An individual also has the right to travel freely and reside within his or her country, but this human right does not specifically require a country to allow the entry of any individual.
The second part of this article was grossly violated when Germany existed as two legal entities, East and West Germany. East Germany would not allow its citizens to travel outside its jurisdiction and lined the border with machine guns and minefields for the express purpose of preventing its citizens from leaving. Hundreds of East Germans lost their lives trying to flee. While the East German government tried to justify its restrictions on leaving the country on the basis that it was protecting its citizens from Western intrusion, such obstacles clearly violated the intent of this human right.
ARTICLE 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The right of asylum pertains to individuals who hold a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of political, religious, or racial status. Every country must allow individuals the right to present their case for asylum. A need for this provision arose from the difficulty that Jewish and other individuals had during World War II trying to escape persecution by the Nazi regime. Asylum does not apply, however, to cases in which an individual is being prosecuted in his or her home country for nonpolitical crimes. Consequently, economic crimes or motives for seeking asylum fall short of satisfying the requirements of this human right.
Human Rights Watch:
Country Summary of United States
The human rights–monitoring agency, Human Rights Watch (HRW), compiles country and regional reports of human rights abuses throughout the year, with an annual edition summarizing the most relevant abuses. No country or region escapes this overview. What does Human Rights Watch have to say about the United States? Here is an overview from HRW’s 2009 report:
US criminal justice policy continues to raise serious human rights concerns. 2008 saw the resumption of executions after a seven-month hiatus and continued growth of the US prison population, already the world’s largest. Also, in 2008, Human Rights Watch confirmed that there are more than 2,500 US prisoners serving sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under 18; no other country imposes this penalty on juvenile offenders.
In positive developments, the US Supreme Court struck down a law that barred Guantanamo detainees from challenging the legality of their detention, and the Department of Justice brought its first prosecution under a 1994 law allowing courts to try torture committed abroad by US citizens or anyone present in the United States. (Human Rights Watch 2009)
While the report notes positive developments regarding the detention of individuals suspected of carrying out terrorist activities, the U.S. government still seems reluctant to close Guantánamo and unequivocally denounce torture.
The Human Rights Watch summary of the United States indirectly raises other important questions about the U.S. criminal justice system, particularly the growth in number of prisoners. Why does the United States imprison so many people relative to those in other countries? What are the reasons for the growth in numbers of prisoners? What happens to the prisoners when they are released into society? Are any attempts made to “rehabilitate” them? Has the prison industry become self-serving, and is it used to boost employment? A recent study showed that one in every thirty-one adults is on probation or parole, with most of them living in communities. Few resources are directed toward those former prisoners, with 90 percent of the states’ correction dollars spent on prisons (Pew Center 2009). For many people, this failure to address the needs of former prisoners only makes more likely their return to prison.
The economic and social costs of the current U.S. prison system clearly represent a drain on U.S. society but also raise human rights issues. Human Rights Watch reserves its sharpest criticisms of the United States for its criminal justice system.
ARTICLE 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Every individual has the right to belong to a nation, and no country may take away this right without justification. But if an individual wants to change citizenship, then he or she has that right.
ARTICLE 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
This human right promotes marriage and elevates the family to a protected status. At the time this article was written, marriage was clearly intended to mean a union between a male and a female. A family was a household of man, woman, and children. Today, in some countries, the definition of family has broadened and includes single women and men and same-sex families. For instance, in the United States, NASW states that family composition may cover a
range of constellations, including traditional married parents with biological children; divorced, separated, or unmarried parents who have individual, separate, or shared responsibility for the care of children; intergenerational arrangements for child or elder care; gay and lesbian couples with or without the care of children; and adoptive and foster families. . . . Family social policy needs to recognize and respect a variety of family compositions and their respective specific needs. (NASW 2009, 134–35)
This expansion of the traditional view of family is an example of why human rights concepts and documents can never be static.
This human right also states that both prospective spouses must consent to the marriage, another provision that can run afoul of customs in some countries. In some societies, parents or the prospective husband chooses a spouse and arranges the marriage. This provision is an example of how culture comes into play in a human rights context. Why should a society be accused of a human rights violation for a tradition that has existed for centuries? Chapter 7 covers “cultural relativism” in more detail.
ARTICLE 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
This human right guarantees private ownership of assets. Governments may not confiscate someone’s property without justification.
ARTICLE 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
This human right guarantees freedom of religion and thought. This right may be suppressed when governments interpret religion as a political statement. Some countries base their government on religious teachings and condemn those who do not practice the dominant religion. Technically, these would be violations of this human right, but the issue becomes murky when religion is closely tied to government.
Separation of Government and Religion
What happens when religion conflicts with government policies? Which one controls? In the United States, constitutional and other legal principles require a separation of religion and state, and the government must take a relatively neutral position toward religion. This does not mean that the government must ignore or shun religious perspectives. However, favoring any religion or incorporating religion into official policies generally would be taboo.
In contrast to the separation of religion and state in the United States, religion and government are intertwined in some countries. In those countries, which would include some in the Middle East, religious principles form the basis of public policies. Unquestionably, everyone is pressured to join the dominant religion, allowing little room for other religious practices. Conversely, some countries may discourage or ban the practice of religion, in which case, groups may feel inhibited from joining a religious congregation or even meeting privately with other individuals.
The human right guaranteeing freedom of religion and thought does not contemplate an environment of fear when individuals wish to practice their beliefs. The failure to allow freedom of thought and religion can lead to the repression of human dignity, a fundamental basis of human rights.
ARTICLE 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Freedom of expression without interference by governments or others is a human right. While this right appears to mirror the First Amendment right of free speech contained in the U.S. Constitution, an important distinction is that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech but does not prohibit individuals from restricting opinions or information in a purely private setting. In that sense, this human right appears to be broader than the First Amendment.
ARTICLE 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Every person has a human right to peacefully assemble and meet with others, but no group may force an individual to join the group against his or her wishes.
ARTICLE 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
This human right requires countries to hold free and democratic elections, which shall determine the desires of the people. An individual has the right to run for a government position or support candidates running for office. Governments may not discriminate against individuals in its provision of public services.
While everyone may have the right to take part in government, a lack of financial resources can hinder this participation, especially in the United States. Without adequate funding, an individual in the United States has little chance of being elected, particularly in state or federal elections. And while most U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, many do not, with the result that often a minority of voters actually elects government officials. Does a minority of eligible voters truly represent the will of the people, especially when monetary interests have played a large role in determining electoral candidates? From a human rights viewpoint, this type of election may seem deficient.
ARTICLE 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
This human right introduces the concept of economic and social human rights. By virtue of being human, everyone is entitled to social security and the economic, social, and cultural rights necessary to obtain dignity and pursue individual development. These rights should be realized by national efforts and international cooperation, with consideration of the organization and resources of each state.
A government must try to provide residents with the means to realize economic, social, and cultural rights. To realize these rights, governments should cooperate with one another, especially through international organizations and agreements.
Social workers have significant involvement in these issues, with the NASW supporting a national health care policy that ensures the right to universal medical coverage (NASW 2009, 169). NASW also advocates for the goal that all individuals and families have the right to housing that meets their basic needs for shelter at an affordable level and offers a rewarding community life (NASW 2009, 194). In practicing their profession, social workers should also respect the cultural rights of others (NASW 2009, 345).
ARTICLE 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
This human right elaborates on the generalized economic and social rights stated in article 22 of the declaration. The employment rights listed in article 23 appear utopian in that unemployment seems to be a fact of life the world over, especially in financially difficult times. Can governments really guarantee employment and a wage sufficient to provide an existence worthy of human dignity? Many countries’ opposition to “job creation” policies is probably too great to currently meet a job guarantee. Nonetheless, the goal of ensuring that everyone who wants to work has a job with sufficient income has merit.
This article also raises the issue of equal pay for equal work. Women typically earn significantly less than men and encounter numerous obstacles in overcoming wage and salary differentials (NASW 2009, 360–63). NASW thus advocates for remedies to eliminate gender inequity at all levels of traditional social work interventions.
Paid Vacation as a Human Right?
In European countries, a paid four-week (or even greater) vacation from work is a sacred human right and is even cited as a human right in human rights documents adopted by countries all over the world. But would the paid vacation have the same human rights status in less economically developed countries that may not be able to pay for vacations? Certainly, leisure time is indispensable to human existence, regardless of culture. But when Western concepts of paid vacation infiltrate human rights principles, resentment and impressions of arrogance might enter into the human rights equation of how non-Westerners view human rights. Perhaps more than most other human rights, the paid vacation principle clashes with economic realities in many countries.
ARTICLE 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
As with the human right guaranteeing a right to work, this right also appears Western oriented and lofty in its realization even if the concept has merit.
ARTICLE 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
This human right addresses key economic and social benefits, including health care, housing, and other social welfare services. Here is where the United States, with its long tradition of political and civil protection, fails to devote equal attention in the area of human rights. While some countries may not have sufficient resources to provide these economic and social rights, the United States certainly could do much better in providing those rights.
Special care and assistance for motherhood and childhood also pertain to cultural and social rights. From contemporary perspectives, the exclusion of fatherhood may seem outdated. However, motherhood, or the act of conceiving a child and bringing that child into the world, does hold unique attributes, and a human right recognizing the special needs of motherhood seems appropriate.
ARTICLE 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Under these provisions, elementary or fundamental education is a human right, with parents having the right to choose between religious or secular education. NASW supports public education as a primary institution that shares with the family responsibility for raising and training children and youths. Furthermore, public education is a vital socializing force that, with the family, promotes the total development of the child—intellectually, socially, and physically (NASW 2009, 99–100). These provisions also mandate education of human rights. In a broad sense, education about human rights relates to access to resources, discrimination, and overall treatment in the school environment.
ARTICLE 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in a scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.
Participation in cultural life and benefits relating to technology is a human right. This article also guarantees ownership protection of inventions and productions.
ARTICLE 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
This article addresses what are called third-generation human rights, which promote cooperation among different countries. To fully realize rights and freedoms specified in the declaration, a spirit of working together must prevail. An example of this concept is an environmental treaty to reduce greenhouse emissions, since global warming creates a worldwide problem and is not simply an isolated problem affecting just one country or region. For the treaty to be effective, many countries would have to obey its terms. In other words, international cooperation to realize human rights is the basis of third-generation human rights.
ARTICLE 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
This article generally imposes duties on the individual to the community and to other individuals. These duties involve recognition and respect for rights and freedoms of others, as well as adherence to the purposes and priciples of the United Nations. The realization of human rights is a twoway street. Governments must guarantee many of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration, but individuals also must recognize their duty to the community to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
ARTICLE 30
Nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
This final article acts as a safe harbor against violations of any human right or freedom specified in the declaration. The human rights and freedoms of the Universal Declaration are inviolate, and no state, group, or individual has the right to destroy those rights and freedoms.
Issues Raised by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers a wide range of fundamental rights pertaining to individuals, groups, and governments, and when putting these rights into action and practice, the challenge presented by the declaration becomes clear. Whose voices are being heard in the interpretations of human rights? Who benefits from the exercise of human rights, and who does not? Who enforces human rights? Who pays for the provision of human rights? Many issues arise simply from the existence of a universal set of guidelines, especially in view of the vast number of nations that have come into existence since the adoption of the declaration.
Universality of Human Rights
With a world made up of about two hundred different nations and countless cultural and social divisions, how can human rights ever be universal? The purpose of the Universal Declaration was to provide basic guidelines for individuals and nations in how they act and interact with one another. The declaration establishes a code of conduct, much like a code of ethics for professional organizations. For instance, social workers must subscribe to a code of ethics regarding how they act with clients, colleagues, and the public. Even if social workers may differ over the meaning of a particular statement of ethics, this disagreement does not prevent the existence of a code of ethics. Social workers also come from diverse backgrounds and do not always share a particular position on professional issues. Moreover, a clinical social worker may have little familiarity with the difficulties of a community social worker, administrator, or academic. Does that mean universal themes or principles of social work are not relevant to the social work profession? The profession has many publications relating to social work practice, principles, and ethics that apply to all social workers in many, and diverse, countries.
The Universal Declaration resembles a code of conduct for a professional group, such as social workers. The obvious difference is that the declaration aims to include every individual and nation under its umbrella. If a code of conduct can exist for a professional organization whose members come from vastly different cultural, economic, and political backgrounds, then a code of conduct also is possible for the individuals and nations of the world. There always may be differences in carrying out the code, but a general agreement on its necessity and principles can be established. By viewing the Universal Declaration as a universal code of conduct for nations and individuals, social workers can more readily grasp the significance and importance of the declaration.
As with any code of conduct, violations of the Universal Declaration occur, with many falling into a gray area. But this does not mean the declaration should be ignored. Consider article 5 of the declaration: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, many countries violate this human right, including the United States. Yet few could argue against the intent behind this right: nobody should undergo torture or cruel treatment. Even though countries may differ in how they interpret torture or cruel treatment, the underlying principles concerning torture are universal. For example, should withholding food and water from a prisoner until he confesses to a crime be considered a human rights abuse? Withholding food and water is a life-threatening circumstance and a human rights violation. Its justification is to force a statement that the prisoner most likely does not want to make, especially if he did indeed commit a crime. Should he be made to confess in this manner? What if the prisoner has not committed the crime? Does a culture or society have an interest in treating an accused individual in this manner? If so, does that interest outweigh the harm done to the individual? From a human rights perspective, when a human right is clearly and universally defined, culture or “necessity” may not be used as a pretext to violate that right.
The Problem with Torture: A Social Work Perspective
Lawyers and politicians of all stripes have commented on whether President George W. Bush’s administration should be investigated for the possible use of torture, an activity clearly illegal under U.S. laws and treaties, as well as human rights documents. The legalistic discussion of torture may seem far removed from the social work profession, but social workers should not ignore the issues surrounding the torture debate. After all, they may find themselves in situations that have everything to do with these issues.
Suppose that a social worker works for the International Red Cross or other nongovernmental organization with the duty to examine practices used by the U.S. military in its questioning of detainees in Afghanistan. The social worker talks to U.S. military officials, who insist that nobody they are detaining has been mistreated. She then talks to some of the detainees and hears a different story. She now must write a report on her findings.
Should the social worker gloss over allegations of torture, leaving it to lawyers and others to debate? Or should she challenge the U.S. military and question their practices, knowing that this may result in a strong backlash against her report? The social worker has an obligation to examine the torture issue from a human rights position, which is clear: nobody, not even an affirmed terrorist, may be tortured. This position may seem ill advised, but not from a human rights perspective. Everyone is entitled to basic, minimal rights, regardless of circumstances. The social work perspective must conform to human rights principles, which allow wiggle room in some situations. But when the human rights principle is concrete, like that of torture, the social work perspective must conform to that principle.
While some human rights have clearly been accepted as universal, others are still evolving. For example, even though article 5 prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, only recently have countries interpreted that provision to relate to violence in the domestic or private sphere. For many years, degrading treatment or physical violence here escaped consideration as a human rights violation. Then, through the efforts of many NGOs and individuals, many countries now view the human right prohibiting degrading and inhuman treatment to include circumstances inside the home. By connecting this human right to violence against women and children in a private setting, a universal norm is being established that domestic violence is just as great a human rights abuse as torture against prisoners. In other words, the issue of domestic violence has become a societal and structural concern rather than simply an individual problem. Also, by highlighting the structural wrong of domestic violence, the human right to be free from domestic violence transcends any cultural norm that might tolerate it.
Understanding universality and culture is crucial to the study of human rights. By studying the purpose of particular human rights, social workers can better understand the concept of universality, even when encountering diverse backgrounds and work conditions.
Enforcement of Human Rights
Do we have a mechanism for enforcing violations of human rights? Who determines when a violation has occurred? If these rights cannot be enforced, they will have little meaning.
The enforcement of human rights generally depends on the goodwill or interest of individual countries. If a particular country has not enacted laws that incorporate the human rights contained in the declaration, then countries and individuals can easily circumvent the declaration. In recent years, however, countries have grown more sensitive to accusations of violating human rights and do take steps to recognize them. The “power of shame” today thus acts as an indirect enforcement tool (Economist 1998).
Aside from perhaps the desire of countries and individuals to avoid criticism for abusing human rights, the United Nations has in force a monitoring body, the Commission on Human Rights. The commission evaluates various complaints about human rights practices in different areas of the world, although the commission itself has no direct enforcement powers, and its position often is influenced by politics (Economist 1998). Although the infiltration of politics into the commission may be unfortunate, one positive aspect is that countries do pay some attention to publicity about human rights concerns.
The United Nations itself can take action against a member state for violating human rights, provided that enough member countries vote to do so. The difficulty of enforcement through the UN is obtaining sufficient support to undertake action against human rights violations. This lack of support often comes as a result of different perspectives on the human rights in question. If powerful countries like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, or France disagree on whether action should be taken to remedy perceived violations of human rights, then there cannot be a united front against the violation. Instead, it will be left to individual countries to take action, which the United States and others have done in some instances (consider the U.S. intervention in Iraq with its “coalition of the willing”). Despite instances in which outside forces have intervened to prevent violations of human rights within a country, the general view appears to be that countries will not directly intervene in the affairs of another country to correct alleged violations.
Local views of human rights often influence attention paid to different rights. In China, government officials may view the American-style freedom of speech as a threat to society and thus place little emphasis on allowing free expression. Instead, Chinese officials may consider human rights involving economic progress to be a greater priority, that satisfying hunger is more important than publicizing antigovernment sentiments. The priorities given to human rights enforcement occurs everywhere. The United States does not provide everyone with adequate education or health care, but it does allow freedom of movement within its borders. This prioritizing of human rights conflicts with the indivisibility concept, meaning that no particular human right is more important than another. Unless governments and individuals acknowledge indivisibility among human rights, the enforcement of those rights will always remain arbitrary and incomplete.
In addition to local politics that address human rights, another method of enforcing human rights lies in individuals and organizations that bring to light different violations. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations focus on aspects of human rights and pressure governments to change their policies and promote respect for human rights. By bringing attention to these concerns, these organizations have had some success in creating an environment in which human rights are better respected.
Enforcement of human rights remains a major issue. Even when countries agree on the interpretation of a particular human right, enforcement can be troublesome. Perhaps the most effective means of enforcing human rights is education. If governments, groups, and individuals consciously strive to understand and practice human rights, enforcement would be much simpler.
Unfortunately, many countries, including the United States, appear hypocritical when promoting human rights. Countries refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it suits them and ignore it at will. This double standard dilutes the meaning and purpose of the declaration. With so many diverse viewpoints surrounding the declaration, differences will always emerge regarding its interpretation. And the stronger voices, meaning those of the United States and other dominant countries, may prevail in imposing their version of the declaration onto the rest of the world.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like any other human rights document, is not perfect. But the declaration still is important and can provide a starting point for discussion of many domestic and international issues affecting different countries.
Social Work Perspective on the Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration contains numerous rights and freedoms defining what every individual, no matter where in the world he or she resides should have. The challenge of promoting those rights is enormous, but one that social workers can naturally embrace within their profession. For instance, the preamble to the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers could have been lifted right out of the declaration: “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW 1996, 1).
The code adds that social workers should be sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. The profession’s core values of the profession are service, integrity, competence, social justice, the dignity and worth of the person, and the importance of human relationships. Even though parts of the code resemble provisions of the Universal Declaration, the code never mentions human rights. This omission of any reference to human rights may not seem important so long as social workers follow human rights principles. But by failing to devote attention to human rights documents and provisions, social workers may not fully understand their significance. Human rights are closely connected to social work, and the study of those rights can only enhance competence with the social work profession.
Questions
1. What are the reasons for having the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
2. Are governments legally required to respect the declaration’s principles?
3. Discuss the concept of universality and how that might conflict with culture. Is it possible to have a common interpretation or understanding of human rights?
4. What is the connection of human dignity to human rights?
5. What is meant by different generations of human rights?
6. Which human rights are considered economic, social, and cultural rights?
7. How does article 5 of the declaration relate to domestic violence?
8. A social worker makes an unannounced visit to a recipient of public assistance. Is this a human rights violation? Discuss.
9. Does the Universal Declaration balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community?
10. What is meant by the phrase “the Universal Declaration is a living document”? Give an example of how human rights in 1948 could be interpreted differently in 2011.
11. Is a living wage—meaning a wage adequate to provide respectable housing and other necessities—a human right?
12. A person needs medical attention for a cold. The person has no health insurance and cannot afford to visit a doctor. Discuss the human rights issues raised by these circumstances.
13. What do you see as the main challenges in enforcing the Universal Declaration?
References
CEDAW. 1979. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. G.A. Res. 34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th sess., supp. no. 46 at 193, U.N. Doc.A/34/46, adopted September 3, 1981. New York: United Nations.
The Economist. 1998. Human-rights law. December 15, pp. 4–16.
Hansen, E. 1991. Wohlfahrtspolitik in NS-Staat: Motivationen, Konflikte und Machstrukturen im “Sozialismus der Tat” des Dritten Riches. Augsburg: Maro.
Morsink, J. 1999. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
——. 2003. Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2003–2006. 6th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
——. 2006. Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2006–2009. 7th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
——. 2009. Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Otto, H. U., and H. Sunker. 1991. Politische Formierung und soziale Erziehung im Natinalsozialmus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Pew Center. 2009. 1 in 31 U.S. adults are behind bars, on parole or probation. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org (accessed September 1, 2009).
Pibel, D. 2007. Rights at the crossroads. Yes! (spring 2007): 1.
Prigoff, A. 2000. Economics for Social Workers: Social Outcomes of Economic Globalization with Strategies for Community Action. Sacramento, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Reichert, E., and R. McCormick. 1998. U.S. welfare law violates human rights of immigrants. Migration World 26: 15–18.
Roth, K. 2009. Taking back the initiative from the human rights spoilers. Human Rights Watch World Report 2009. Available at http//:www.hrw.org-world-report-2009 (accessed August 27, 2009).
Schnurr, S. 1997. Why did social workers accept the New Order? In Education and Fascism, ed. H. Sunker and H. U. Otto, 326–88. London: Falmer Press.
UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 1, 1948. GA.Res.217 AIII. United Nations Document a/810. New York: UN.