Revised Research Paper on the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities

by Dr. John I. Fleming, BA, ThL (Hons), PhD., Dr. Michael G. Hains, LLB (Hons), Ph.D.

PART ONE

Introduction

The Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, by its very name, assumes:

• that the existing human rights documents do not place sufficient emphasis on human responsibilities; and
• that responsibilities can be codified in the same way that human rights have been codified in the instruments that make up the International Bill of Human Rights.

In this Paper we shall contend that both of these assumptions are unwarranted, and that this attempt to codify human responsibilities limits the range of licit choices that could be made to promote and defend human rights and will violate some of the human rights which we are bound by international law and the natural law to defend.

The International Bill of Human Rights reflects and codifies the fundamental human values which all human societies have favoured and expresses them as human rights. Different cultures and religions agree to these values perhaps for different reasons. What is striking, however, is the universal agreement which has been accorded to these values.[1]

Jacques Maritaine, for example, noted the practical convergence on fundamental values despite profound disagreement on ideology.[2] Despite all the difficulties it is possible, "as the International Declaration of The Rights of Man published by the United Nations in 1948 showed very clearly ... to establish a common formulation of such practical conclusions."[3] When one asks the question as to why these rights or values ought to be accepted, "the dispute begins".[4] This difference between the speculative and the practical, between what theory or ideology one holds which explains human rights and the practical commitment to those rights, Maritaine specifies by reference to an address he gave to the second International Conference of UNESCO:

I have just said that the present state of intellectual division among men does not permit agreement on a common speculative ideology, nor on common explanatory principles. However, when it concerns, on the contrary, the basic practical ideology and the basic principles of action implicitly recognized today, in a vital though not articulated manner, by the consciousness of free peoples, this happens to constitute grosso modo a sort of common residue, a sort of unwritten common law, at the point of practical convergence of extremely different theoretical ideologies and spiritual traditions.[5]

Maritaine does not dismiss the theoretical considerations as of no importance. They are "vitally important." Nevertheless, because of "an agreement on the practical formulation of that [democratic] charter ... they can formulate together common principles of action."[6]

The question is this: how far does the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities stray into the area of the speculative, imposing the partial social agenda of fashionable Western and Western-influenced elites?

It seems to us that the writers of the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities have produced a document which, intentionally or unintentionally, challenges the consensus gentium on human rights as expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights because it attempts to codify human responsibilities in a univocal way reflecting the preoccupations of Western elites. Here are some of the ways in which the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is in conflict with the existing International Bill of Human Rights:

• depending on what is meant by "sensible family planning", the right to life of all members of the human family may be compromised by the practice of induced abortion;
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 recognises the right of a man and a woman of marriageable age to marry and to found a family, and that the family is the fundamental group of society. Articles 16 and 17 undermine this recognition by expanding the relationships to be recognised to include "sexual partners" without regard to marital status and even same sex relationships;
• it is the duty of heterosexuals to contracept and abort (Article 18);
• children are equal to parents (Article 18) and the Draft Declaration does not recognise the prior rights and responsibilities of parents concerning their children. This suggests that children can act independently of their parents;
• protection of "animals and the natural environment" seem to have been placed on an equal footing with the protection of human beings (Article 7) even though the International Bill of Human Rights speaks only of human beings as having an inherent dignity and fundamental rights.

Part Two

The Relationship Between Rights And Responsibilities Already Recognised

In its Preamble the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities observes:

whereas the exclusive insistence on rights can result in conflict, division, and endless dispute, and the neglect of human responsibilities can lead to lawlessness and chaos[7]

Firstly, what does the expression "exclusive insistence on rights" mean? It is so vague and possibly even misleading that it could well serve to undermine the international commitment to protect the human rights of all impartially. In the context this poorly drafted section is probably meant to convey the idea that rights without responsibilities is nonsense, with which we would agree. The implication is, however, that such a connection has not already been satisfactorily recognised in the human rights documents. While it may be true that societies dominated by Western individualism have a tendency to emphasise rights of individuals and place less emphasis on the responsibilities which accompany the exercise of those rights, it is not true of societies with a more communitarian ethos. And it is manifestly untrue of the existing human rights documents. That is, the problem is not with the universal human rights documents but with those societies which fail to fully implement the provisions of those documents.

It is universally agreed that rights and duties are symbiotic or co-relative. The extent of my right is determined by the extent of another’s duty. Any reasonable talk about rights is talk about duties and responsibilities. Oxford Law Professor, John Finnis forcefully argues:

In short, every claim of right can be wholly translated into the language of duty, and to the extent that it cannot be so translated it is empty, fraudulent, intellectually irresponsible. Remember, identifying duties means identifying people, or categories of people who have those duties ... we should make free use of the modern language of rights, remembering always that in the genuine logic of that language, my rights are nothing if they are not your duties, and your rights are equally nothing if they are not my duties, my responsibilities.

I think you will agree that the reference to duties clears away some of the fog, and silences some of the empty babble about rights. It returns us to the moral realism of responsibilities, justly assessed.[8]

United Nations’ documents reflect this notion. For example, Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 notes the importance of responsibility. It provides:

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (Emphasis added.)

The Preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1948 both acknowledge:

…that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognised in the present Covenant …(Emphasis added.)

The preoccupation with rights and their selective interpretation and adoption, particularly in Western Civilisation, is a cause for concern. It is therefore understandable why the Draft Declaration seeks to remedy this ill. However, a proper understanding of the rights and responsibilities referred to in the human rights documents shows that the problem is not with the instruments themselves when properly understood and interpreted but with particular societies and especially those dominated by Western liberal thinking.

The Codification of Responsibilities - Unwise and Dangerous

The recognition of fundamental human rights carries with it certain responsibilities which can be stated in a general way. Innocent human beings are to have their fundamental rights protected by the state so that it would be wrong for one human being to kill another human being. But the way in which human beings may participate in the goods constitutive of integral human fulfilment, goods which are expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights as human rights, are inexhaustible. Generally speaking, free choices of individuals and families to participate in the goods are best left to individuals and families to make since they are best placed to make their own priorities and to know all the circumstances which may affect the choices made. However, the commitment by the State to protect fundamental human rights carries with it a duty to develop a legal system which prohibits any free choice by individuals or groups which would violate the human rights of others.

So, the individual may choose to pursue any and all of the goods but not in a way that would violate another good. It would be wrong to pursue the good of knowledge by conducting experiments on live human beings which would place the lives and well-being of those human beings at risk. The codification of rights and responsibilities in these fundamental matters is properly defined in codes of medical ethics and the law. However, the way in which one responsibly deals with the participation in the goods may vary, apart from the universal responsibility not to violate one good in pursuit of another. For example, the good of procreation involves not just the having of children but rearing those children. Different families participate in this good in any one of a number of different ways. There is not just one morally acceptable way to bring up children. Some cultures may regard as exploitative or as maltreatment some traditional methods of child rearing in another culture. The "more equal" treatment of children by parents in Western cultures may be seen as a recipe for disaster in other countries.

The number of children that a couple choose to have will depend on many factors including (but not limited to) the psychological capabilities of the parents, the family income, and the age of the parents involved. To suggest that there is something called "sensible family planning" is a nonsense. It all depends on what is meant by "sensible" and what means are held to be morally licit. These are judgments which are best left to the families involved rather than prescribe an obligation which limits moral choice and about which there is no agreement across the nations of the world. Family planning programmes imposed on (say) African countries with a low population density by European countries with a high population density looks rather like the self-interest of rich and powerful elites who want to deny to poorer countries the standard of living which they presently enjoy.

Codification of responsibilities, once it moves beyond broad fundamnetal propositions, may well become a cloak for the social, political, and moral agendas of the powerful Westernised elites that propose them. The Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities represents an unwise and even a dangerous trend towards the manipulation of populations by powerful elites who wish to impose speculative ideologies without any agreement as to the truth of those ideologies.

A clear example of this is the way in which Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities undermines the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 on marriage and the family despite the fact that it purports to "renew and reinforce commitments already proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". This renewal and reinforcement of those commitments is then immediately limited to ("namely")

the full acceptance of the dignity of all people; their inalienable freedom and equality, and their solidarity with one another.

No reference is made to the whole plethora of other commitments such as the foundational right to life, the sine qua non of all other rights, and the commitment to heterosexual marriage and the family as the fundamental group unit of society. Instead we have specific reference to dignity, freedom and equality, the very notions to which appeal is made in Westernised societies and which, elevated to the position of domination over all other rights and values produces the very kind of irresponsible and destructive behaviour about which the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities purports to complain. Personal autonomy (inalienable freedom) shorn free of the other human rights and allowed to dominate those other rights is precisely the basis of the mentality which seeks its own gratification without responsibility.

Where the family is concerned Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 unequivocally states:

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.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (Emphasis added.)

Echoing the Universal Declaration, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 provides:

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised.

Emphasising the importance of parents to a child the Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989[9] states:

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.

Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 understandably links the importance of the family and marriage to the welfare of children by insisting that States recognise that:

The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependant children. Marriage must be entered into with the full free consent of the intending spouses.

The concept of a man and woman marrying and founding a family are not limited to these documents but are universally recognised. For example, the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages 1964, (especially the Preamble) Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (Article 12), European Social Charter 1961 (Article I,(16)), American Convention on Human Rights 1969 (Article 17) and the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 18 and 27). All these documents speak of males and females, not persons of the same sex. The family, consisting of spouses of the two sexes, is a community of persons and the smallest social unit. As such it is an institution fundamental to the life of every society. No society can run the risk of permissiveness in fundamental issues regarding the nature of the family, or risk a departure from clearly binding[10] rules of international law that give primacy to the heterosexual family unit as the foundation stone of societal relations.

The primacy accorded the "family", consisting of a heterosexual couple and their children, is jus cogens under international law. Jus cogens (or ius cogens) is a peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.[11] Yet the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities by means of a sleight of hand seeks to derogate from the "family" by treating other relationships as equal to the "family", in particular "partnerships" and "sexual partners". This is not new to this area. In the International Year of the Family the UN bureaucracy, in contravention of universally recognised principles, liberally redefined the family. The family is now "families", and families:

… assume diverse forms and functions from one country to another, and within each national society. These express the diversity of individual preferences and societal conditions. Consequently, the International Year of the Family encompasses and addresses the needs of all families;

Heterosexuals marriages are given a preferred legal status to many relationships because of the long-recognised, unique and irreplaceable contributions that such marriages bring to children and society.[12] The very future of society depends on them. Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, by stealth, would permit, and treat as equal, homosexual "marriages" or "registered relationships". This contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and ignores the reality that these types of relationships do not make comparable contributions to:

• public order and the social good;
• community and public health;
• the general welfare of society;
• the public and private economy;
• the requirements of public morality; and
• the procreation and education of children in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.[13]

In short, equal status for same-sex relationships is not supported by equal contribution to society.[14]

PART THREE

Introduction

In this section we make comment on certain preambular paragraphs and articles. The purpose of these critical comments is to further expose the problems involved with attempts to codify human responsibilities beyond the terms proposed in the existing human rights instruments. We do not propose amendments. The Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is, in our view, a mistaken enterprise which is likely, even in an amended form, to undermine the existing human rights declarations and covenants, and to restrict free choices by imposing the fashionable social programmes of elites.

Preambular Paragraph 2

The meaning and purpose of this paragraph is unclear. Because something can lead to certain consequences it does not follow that it will or that it has. This is a case yet to be proved and may well turn out to be no more than an opinion as to what might be possible. Compare that with the second preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which it is stated, without fear of contradiction in the light of immediately preceding historical events, that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind". The compelling case for the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is beyond argument. There is no such compelling case for the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, or at least if there is one it hasn’t yet been made in a way that would command universal agreement.

Preambular Paragraph 4

The reference to "ideas, values, and norms" in this paragraph may well undermine the key notions of "equal and inalienable rights", "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms" contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whose "ideas" and which "norms"? There is a universal agreement on fundamental values expressed as fundamental rights in way that there is no such universal agreement on "ideas" or, beyond very fundamental propositions already proposed in the human rights documents, on "norms".

Preambular Paragraph 5

This paragraph is ambiguous, vague, and consequently dangerous. It is patient of both a benign and a sinister meaning especially when linked to "ideas" in preambular paragraph 4. The concept of "better social order" is not used in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1948 and for very good reason. Beyond conformity to the requirements of respect for fundamental human rights, about which there is universal agreement, who determines what is a better social order and on what basis?

Preambular Paragraph 6

This extraordinary statement is without empirical foundation. Human aspirations for "progress" (however defined) have in fact been realised in different places at different times and in different ways. This paragraph, as it stands, demands a level of centralised commitment which is unrealistic and which may be used to eradicate reasonable choice differences between cultures in favour of Western social, political and moral programmes.

Article 1

This article is simply impossible. How can every person treat all people in a humane way? This is responsibility without end. No one can live like that. Moreover, the preference for the term person, rather than human being, is of concern given the enormous philosophical implications of that controversial term.

Article 2

Again, the scope of this article is preposterous. How can any one of us be expected to strive for the dignity and self-esteem of all others? What does this involve? How do we define the scope of the term inhumane behaviour? For example, some people think any form of corporal punishment is inhumane while others believe parents can exercise such punishment in a humane way.

Article 3

This article uses the question-begging terms of good and evil. No specifications or definitions are used to guide us here. Such terms can easily become sticks with which to beat the customs and traditions of peoples who do not conform to the arbitrary preferences and desires of elites.

Article 4

The drafting of this Article undermines the intent of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that "all human beings are endowed with reason and conscience". The Draft could be interpreted to mean that some people are not, in fact, so endowed depending upon the force placed on the commas after "people" and before "must". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contents itself with saying what people "should" do while the draft proclains what people "must" do. And what the Draft mandates we "must" do is to "accept responsibility ... in a spirit of brotherhood"" for all other human beings considered as individuals, communities, races, nations and religions. Such a burden is too much even for the most altruistic of human beings to accept. Worse, it my also encourage the megalomaic tendencies of pressure groups and elites to impose their own subjective social programmes on others or in some other way unreasonably intrude upon the rights of individuals and groups to manage their own business.

Given the penchant of the drafters to use undefined terms like "humane behaviour", "better social order", "inhumane behaviour", "good and evil", "ethical standards" and "ideas" then the window of opportunity for social engineers and powerful elites to impose upon others is very wide indeed.

Articles 5, 6 & 7

Articles 5, 6 & 7 are entitled "Non-Violence and Respect for Life". Article 5 provides protection of the right to life of a human person and not of a human being or for every member of the human family. Thus Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 undermined. Human history is replete with examples of serious abuses to groups of human beings which are considered not to be persons. Thus could the Egyptian Pharaohs exclude from personhood, and therefore from moral consideration, the Israelites, could Hitler exclude Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the ‘degenerate’ and the asocials from personhood, could the British tolerate the slave trade, and could the European Australians liquidate and repress the Aborigines.

Article 6 is unduly restrictive. The second sentence only applies to "governments". It should be amended to be consistent with Article 4 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which applies to "responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals".

Similarly, the reference in the second sentence to "women, children, or any other civilians as instruments of war" restricts the application of the Draft Declaration. It should apply to all human beings. While woman and children are casualties of war so are men and often in larger numbers.

By calling this Part "Non-Violence and Respect for Life", Article 7 is able to refer to the protection of human beings and "animals and the natural environment" in the one article. Placing "animals and the natural environment" on the same footing as human beings may well lead to serious abuse and especially by those who place the protection of the environment as a higher priority than the protection of the rights of human beings. Those who hold that the earth is threatened by "a plague of human beings" may well be able to use this article to further coercive population containment policies.l It could also be used to reinforce the current push within the UN for an "Earth Charter" and the creation of so-called new "rights". While we must use the earth and its resources sensibly, it is inappropriate and dangerous to place these here. Militant environmentalists who place the environment above the inherent dignity and worth of human beings would be handed a potent weapon on the international stage.

Article 15

It is not for the UN to limit the freedom of religious expression. For example, some elite’s may regard the claim of Jesus Christ to be "the Way, the Truth and the Life" to be an expression of prejudice and an act of discrimination towards those of different beliefs. Again this Article undermines and limits the legitimate right to religious freedom.

Articles 16, 17 & 18

These three articles comprising the section "Mutual Respect and Partnership" are perhaps the most troublesome of all the articles in Draft. In summary, the major difficulties are:

• the "family" consisting of a male and female is neither mentioned nor recognised in any other way. Yet the "family" is universally recognised as the fundamental group of society. These first two points are keystones to the existing Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948;
• partnerships are placed above marriage and the family (Articles 16 and 17);
• partnerships need not be of people of the opposite sex (Article 16);
• sex is placed above love and the marriage covenant;
• the right to "sexual orientation" is gratuitously introduced, and consequently the right to have same sex unions legally recognised;
• heterosexuals have a duty to contracept and abort (Article 18);
• by not recognising the prior rights and responsibilities of parents concerning their children there is a suggestion that children are equal to parents (Article 18) and may act autonomously despite parental guidance to the contrary.

Our analysis will take up only two of these issues. First, the undermining of the family and marriage with its associated right to sexual orientation. Secondly, while most of the Draft Declaration worships at the altar of choice when it comes to family planning it wants to deprive couples of choice as to the numbering and spacing of children.

Family and Marriage

We explored earlier the primacy accorded the family, consisting of a heterosexual couple and their children. Nevertheless this Part of the Draft Declaration headed "Mutual Respect and Partnership" telegraphs its real purpose. Article 16, the lead Article, refers to men and women but in the context of "partnerships" and "sexual partners", not marriage and the family.

In contrast, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises only the right of men and women of full age to marry and found a family (Articles 16 and 23 respectively). The wording of the Draft Declaration recognises homosexual partnerships and homosexual partners. They are equal to heterosexual relationships and marriage. Thus Article 16 creates, by stealth, a right to having same sex relationships legally recognised and protected in the same way that marriage and the family is legally recognised and protected.

Article 17, which is ancillary to Article 16, refers to marriage, but only after Article 16 has already established the key and novel concepts of "partnerships" and "sexual partners" and in a way which would very likely contradict, undermine and effectively usurp established norms of international law concerning the family.

Not surprisingly there is no reference to the family as the fundamental group unit of society in this Part of the Draft Declaration. It would seem unlikely that such a fundamental concept was omitted inadvertently.

Sensible Family Planning

Article 16, having given primacy to sexual acts without reference to offspring, the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities now turns its attention in Article 18 to what it calls sensible family planning which it describes as a responsibility of every couple. If we accept that there is indeed such a responsibility then we open up the possibility for the state to determine what constitutes sensible family planning without breaching Article 16. In practice Article 16 could well be used by state and international bureaucrats to arbitrarily interfere in the privacy of couples and permit the state to argue that couples must contracept and abort. Article 18 ignores a couple’s right to choose the number and the spacing of the births of their children.

It is ironic that while abortionists argue that abortion is a privacy issue for a women. When it comes to the provision of "family planning services" it is a public health issue. This is because in the first case it is the individual’s choice whereas in the second it allows the state to impose measures against the will of the person - because public health is the responsibility of the state. It logically follows that the state can provide minor children with contraceptives and abortion "services" without parental knowledge or approval.

Article 19

We have expressed the view that several aspects of the Draft Declaration contradict, undermine, and usurp the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Some may argue that this view is not sustainable in light of Article 19 of the Draft Declaration. There may be some merit in that view. However, consider this. The Draft Declaration touches on matters not dealt with by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, for example, sensible family planning, partnerships, sexual partners, animals and the natural environment, to name but a few. If there is a responsibility under international law a corresponding right has to be recognised. Some of these new "rights’ added by the Draft Declaration, in the form of responsibilities, do not expressly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 since it does not deal directly with them. Hence, Article 19 has no application in many cases.

Secondly, the raising of, say, the status of a partnership (whether the partners are of same or opposite sex) to the same level as marriage and the family modifies and undermines, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Proponents of a particular social, moral and political agenda may deny this arguing that these other relationships are simply being treated in an equivalent way. Such arguments are already being used to justify same sex "marriages" in the Western Society. But is this really the case? To elevate partnerships to the same level as marriage and the family is to explicitly derogate from a peremptory norm of international law.

Conclusion

No doubt the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities are well-motivated and have the best of intentions. However, the reality remains that this is a project which is a misguided one in so far as it assumes that rights can be codified into responsibilities without undermining existing human rights documents and without unreasonably limiting the choices of individuals and societies. It is also a dangerous project because it also allows the imposition of social agendas on whole societies, agendas which are no more than the arbitrary preferences and desires of influential elites.

It is clear to us that the Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities should be rejected in toto, and that no attempt should be made to revisit this ill-advised project.

ENDNOTES

 1 For a detailed account of this remarkable consensus gentium on human values see John I Fleming, Human Rights and Natural Law: an analysis of the Consensus Gentium and its implications for bioethics, PhD thesis, 1992, Griffith University, Queensland.

2 Jacques Maritaine, Man & The State, ed. Richard O'Sullivan, (London: Hollis & Carter, 1954), 69-73

3 Ibid., 69.

4 Ibid., 70.

5 Ibid., 70-71.

6 Ibid., 71.

7 Preamble, Draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.

8 The Foundations of Human Rights, ICU International Quarterly Cooperation in Education.

9 Although Australia is both a Signatory and a party to the Convention, the Convention is not part of the municipal law of Australia. See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273. Cf. the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 which is incorporated into law as Schedule 3 to the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

10 The precise status of various Declarations and Conventions under Australian law is unclear, but it is fair to say that some uncertainty exists as to there status. See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 and the proposed Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997.

11 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Article 53.

12 Professor Wardle argues:

The concept of marriage is founded on the factual reality that the union of two persons of different genders creates something unique, a special relationship of unique potential strengths and inimitable potential value to society. The integration of the universe of gender differences (profound and subtle, biological and cultural, psychological and genetic) associated with sexual identity constitutes the core and essence of marriage. The heterosexual dimensions of the relationship are at the very core of what makes "marriage" what it is, and why it is so valuable to individuals and to society. [at 9]

. . . More importantly, it is not a mere definitional restriction that limits marriage to heterosexual unions, but the union of a man and a woman is part of the very nature and reality of the marriage relationship itself. The covenant union between a man and woman that we call marriage is unique. The relationship between two persons of the same sex is fundamentally different because men and women are fundamentally different. No other companionate relationship provides the same great potential for benefiting individuals and society as the heterosexual covenant union we call marriage, and that is why only committed heterosexual unions are given the legal status of marriage. It is not the marriage certificate or legal status that makes the heterosexual marital relationship uniquely beneficial to individuals and society but it is the nature of heterosexual covenant relationship itself. It is not the label marriage that makes heterosexual unions valuable, but because heterosexual covenant unions are valuable they are given the preferred legal status (and label) of marriage.

Gender-integration is part of the very nature of the unique marital relationship that societies across millennia and across cultural, language, and ethnic divisions have valued so highly as marriages. In some societies and eras, some other compassionate relationships have been tolerated, or accommodated, but those other relationships were recognised to be something different, not marriages. The legal status of marriage has been reserved exclusively for special covenant heterosexual unions because those unions are unique and uniquely beneficial. The right to enter that unique relationship is now generally recognised to be one of the basic human rights because that relationship is unique and uniquely important to humanity. Thus, the basic human right of marriage does not extend to same-sex unions because the protected relationship of marriage, by its very nature, is uniquely heterosexual. It is like the story attributed to Abraham Lincoln, he is said to have once asked how many legs a dog would have if you counted a tail as a leg. To the response "five legs," Lincoln said, "No; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg." [at 10-11]

Lynn D. Wardle, Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School, Paper delivered at the World Congress of Families, Prague, March 1997.

13 For a review of recent studies on the importance of the family consisting of a male and female see B. Muehlenberg, The case for two-parent families, a paper presented to the Thomas More Centre, May 1993.

14 Statement of Rex E. Lee, unpublished February 1996.

  (Revision 1.1)

Dr John I Fleming, BA, ThL (Hons), PhD.
Director
Southern Cross Bioethics Institute
PO Box 206
Plympton, SA 5038
AUSTRALIA
Tel: + 61 8 8297 0022
Fax: + 61 8 8371 1391
Mobile: 0419 819 452
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Michael G Hains, LLB (Hons), Ph.D.
Attorney
Research Fellow
Southern Cross Bioethics Institute
Adjunct Lecturer in Law, University of NSW
Visiting Fellow University of Melbourne (1996)
Email: [email protected]

 

October 1998

 

 

---

Appendix One

Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities

(Proposed by the Inter Action Council)

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 and implies obligations and responsibilities,

whereas the exclusive insistence on rights can result in conflict, division, and endless dispute, and the neglect of human responsibilities can lead to lawlessness and chaos,

whereas the rule of law and the promotion of human rights depend on the readiness of men and women to act justly,

whereas global problems demand global solutions which can only be achieved through ideas, values, and norms respected by all cultures and societies,

whereas all people, to the best of their knowledge and ability, have a responsibility to foster a better social order, both at home and globally, a goal which cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone,

whereas human aspirations for progress and improvement can only be realised by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly

proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities as a common standard for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall contribute to the advancement of communities and to the enlightenment of all their members. We, the peoples of the world thus renew and reinforce commitments already proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: namely, the full acceptance of the dignity of all people; their inalienable freedom and equality, and their solidarity with one another. Awareness and acceptance of these responsibilities should be taught and promoted throughout the world.

Fundamental Principles for Humanity

Article 1

Every person, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a responsibility to treat all people in humane way.

Article 2

No person should lend support to any form of inhumane behaviour, but all people have a responsibility to strive for the dignity and self-esteem of all others.

Article 3

No person, no group or organisation, no state, no army or police stands above good and evil; all are subject to ethical standards. Everyone has a responsibility to promote good and to avoid evil in all things.

Article 4

All people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations and religions in a spirit of solidarity: What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others.

Non-Violence and Respect for Life

Article 5

Every person has a responsibility to respect life. No one has the right to injure, to torture or to kill another human person. This does not exclude the right of justified self-defence of individuals or communities.

Article 6

Disputes between states, groups or individuals should be resolved without violence. No government should tolerate or participate in acts of genocide or terrorism, nor should it abuse women, children, or any other civilians as instruments of war. Every citizen and public official has a responsibility to act in a peaceful, non-violent way.

Article 7

Every person is infinitely precious and must be protected unconditionally. The animals and the natural environment also demand protection. All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and futures generations.

Justice and Solidarity

Article 8

Every person has a responsibility to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness. No person or group should rob or arbitrarily deprive any other person or group of their property.

Article 9

All people, given the necessary tools, have a responsibility to make serious efforts to overcome poverty, malnutrition, ignorance, and inequality. They should promote sustainable development all over the world in order to assure dignity, freedom, security and justice for all people.

Article 10

All people have a responsibility to develop their talents through diligent endeavour, they should have equal access to education and to meaningful work. Everyone should lend support to the needy, the disadvantaged, the disabled and to the victims of discrimination.

Article 11

All property and wealth must be used responsibility in accordance with justice and for the advancement of the human race. Economic and political power must not be handled as an instrument of domination, but in the service of economic justice and of the social order.

Truthfulness and Tolerance

Article 12

Every person has a responsibility to speak and act truthfully. No one, however high and mighty, should speak lies. The right to privacy and to personal and professional confidentiality is to be respected. No one is obliged to tell all the truth to everyone all the time.

Article 13

No politicians, public servants, business leaders, scientists, writers or artists are exempt from general ethical standards, nor are physicians, lawyers and other professionals who have special duties to clients. Professional and other codes of ethics should reflect the priority of general standards such as those of truthfulness and fairness.

Article 14

The freedom of the media to inform the public and to criticise institutions of society and governmental actions, which is essential for a just society, must be used with responsibility and discretion. Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades the human person or dignity must at all times be avoided.

Article 15

While religious must be guaranteed, the representatives of religions have a special responsibility to avoid expressions of prejudice and acts of discrimination against those of different beliefs. They should not incite or legitimize hatred, fanaticism and religious wars, but should foster tolerance and mutual respect between all people.

Mutual Respect and Partnership

Article 16

All men and all women have a responsibility to show respect to one another and understanding in their partnership. No one should subject another person to sexual exploitation or dependence. Rather, sexual partners should accept the responsibility of caring for each other’s well-being.

Article 17

In all its cultural and religious varieties, marriage requires love, loyalty and forgiveness and should aim at guaranteeing security and mutual support.

Article 18

Sensible family planning is the responsibility of every couple. The relationship between parents and children should reflect mutual love, respect, appreciation and concern. No parents or other adults should exploit, abuse or maltreat children.

Conclusion

Article 19

Nothing in this 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 responsibilities, rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

This item 610 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org