Sunday, September 2, 2007

Comparative and Analysis of UDHR and UDHRI

Pannasastra University of Cambodia
Course: Human Rights and World Politics
Prof: Stan Starygin,
Student: SE John, ID# 03839
Date: September 2, 2007


My paper will talk about the background of UDHR and UDHRI. Why these
2 declarations have differences point of view and concepts? What do they have
in commons and the difference between these 2 importance principles? I am
going to illustrate point by point to detail of what in commons and the differences.
I will also share my point of view as I am a student for the 2 declarations, since
they are laws we can not define but interpret into varied situation anyhow. I am
also going to address one case, which was related with Lina Joy’s case who live
in Muslin country, she has no freedom to change her religion but only name
finally, which was completely contradict to the UDHR on Article 18. Since they
have ideas, concepts, ideologies, perspectives and philosophies that was why
war on terror because of discrimination of cultures, tradition and religion (Muslim
treated us of the discrimination).


I. Introduction
II. Overall Controversial and debate over UDHR and UDHRI
III. UDHR and UDHRI in common perspectives
IV. UDHR and UDHRI differences perspectives
V. Case Study – Lina Joy’s case
VI. Student Recommendation
VII. Conclusion

I. Introduction
Human Rights were respected and practiced almost of the countries around
the world, but it was not very much in a few Muslim countries as have been
seen for real. That was why we have the 2 declarations UDHR and UDHRI
has surely stated somewhat differences concepts and point of view. In this
context, UDHR has created and adopted in Western countries but UDHRI in
Muslim countries.
The main aim of UDHR is wanted to promote peace, common understanding
and justice thru out the world; yet, UDHRI has contradicted it and wanted to
revise on UDHR 1948 somehow. As has already stated by the president of
United States Mr. Roossevelt" freedom of want, freedom of hunger, freedom
from fear and war"
Since the 2 declaration had not been agreed each somehow because of
different cultures, tradition and religion, so Muslim countries appose to alter
some laws; yet, it was lead no result at the end in order to revise the UDHR.
The UDHRI establishes the hari’a law as "the only source of reference" for the

II. Overall Controversial and debate over UDHR and UDHRI
The UDHR is a Western secular concept of Judeco - Christian origin, in
compatible with the Sacred Islamic Shari’a.
For the past decades the United Nations have promote Human Rights and
prevention of discrimination and protect of Minorities.
Organization of Islamic Conference has spent a haft of million dollars to
conduct a seminar to talk about the REVISION of the 1948 UDHR, but it has
achieved no result since this law has already put into forced as well as
recognition by internationally.
The UDHR is among the best known and most widely cited, both by
government and civil society.

In this context, one should not forget the clear provisions contained in Article
29 of the UDHR:
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 security due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the justice requirement 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.

The corpus of international instruments of human rights adopted since 1948
constitutes a sufficiently flexible framework for their full implementation in all
religions and countries in the world, provided the political will exists.
The preamble of the UDHR begins with the words: "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
This idea is reiterated in Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal
indignity and rights."
Therefore, any future "compromises" on the UDHR – based upon the
proclaimed differences in culture, traditions, religion or socio-economic
customs – rather that leading to peaceful recognition could, however worthy
the intentions, insert uneven cobblestones, this paving new paths of
uncertainty in the coming century of the international community and all
peoples of the world.

III. UDHR and UDHRI in common perspectives
As long as I have read thru I have found a lot of articles have stated the same
words and somewhat different meaning. Since I am the student, I have no
obligation to define laws but interpret, so I just to decide to take words to
compare the 2 laws – UDHR and UDHRI hereafter.
In article 1 UDHR has stated the word equal and dignity, whereas in UDHRI
the same article 1 has also mention the same 2 words "All human beings are
born equal in dignity" and "All men are equal in term of basic human dignity".
To me, I have considered it is the same in meaning.
Article 1 under UDHRI has mention "All men are equal in term of basic human
dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination
on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religions belief, political
affiliation, social status, or other consideration. It is pretty much the same
meaning in Article 2 under UDHR "Every one is entitled to all the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, social
All in all, I just would like to declare that even if UDHR and UDHRI were
established cultures, traditions and religions but somehow they do have
something in common. I do believe that both laws have been long wanted to
promote peace and justice in the same principles.

IV. UDHR and UDHRI differences perspectives
We have clearly seen that the UDHR and UDHRI are different words already
by adding letter I is meant ISLAM. UDHR has created and adopted in
Western countries; however, UDHRI had established and adopted in Muslim
countries. UDRH is Christian concepts and ideologies, but UDHRI is Islam
concepts and ideologies within Sharia Islamic law.
UDHR was created since 1948; yet, UDHRI was just established 1990.

Most of the countries around the world had adopted and rectified United
Nations Charter, Covenant, and International Bill of Human Rights and
However, UDHRI were applied and practiced only a few Islamic countries for
the sack of their own Islam countries interests only. The UDHRI was not as
broaden and meaningful as UDHR as I can tell.
As the matter of fact, there were 30 articles in UDHR whereas UDHRI had
consisted only 25 articles totally. This is the majority differences.
The huge different are article 24 and 25 in UDHRI. As you well know, UDHR
is English but HDHRI is Arabic versions so it is difference both meaning
concepts. Each conveying a somewhat different message; nonetheless,
Article 24 and 25 in the English version of the UDHRI are very precisely and
leave no doubt as to the overall meaning:
Article 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are
subject to the Islamic Shari’a.
Article 25: The Islamic Shara is the only source of reference for the
explanation or clarification of any the article of this Declaration.
For these 2 articles, as I have already and clearly mention above that the
UDHRI has used only Muslim religion and/or Islamic countries, and we have
never seen in HDHRI because of the fact that they only stated Sharia which
are Islamic law.
Article 6: UDHRI
a. Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has right to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
b. The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
If we look at article 6 closely, we are able to see article 6 under UDHRI man and
woman are not finitely equal. As stated that the husband is responsible for he
support and welfare of the family, it is meant that husband has more burden and
responsibilities by responsible and support the family. What if the husband has
no or less education and for real the job market is really tight for man. Do they
still handle this obligation? .For example, there are a lot job for women and those
job make a lot of money – do they have no obligation to feed the family. This
concepts principle is totally different from UDHR. The UDHR don’t really care
who will responsible or support the family as long as married, they share thing
together regardless easy or hard job. For this article they put heavily
responsibility to the husband but not the wife.

Article 19: UDHRI
There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for the Shari’ah.
Look at this article 19 under UDHRI. It is ridiculer, if human commit crime and
this crime will be punished by criminal law, if GOD said no crime by Sharia, they
will not punish even if it was really crime act.

Article 5: UDHRI
The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, color or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right.
For article 5 under UDHRI has prohibited to impose any restriction on marriage
stemming from "race, colour or nationality" it is meant that men and women may
be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion.
In spite of the self-evident contradiction with the UDHR, the UDHRI was
published in December 1997 by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in Volume II of International Instruments, which would seem to give it a
certain authority, even if the sub-title refers to Regional Instruments, whereas the
sub-title of Volume I (in two parts) is Universal Instruments.

V. Case Study – Lina Joy’s case
Lina Joy was born in Muslim family and her original name was Azalina Binti
Jailani. She applied to change her name at NRD on February 21, 1997 from
Islam name to Christian name in order to marry her boy friend was Christianity.
She was rejected by NRD without ground on August 11, 1997. She applied again
on March 15, 1999. She received no replied and she went to follow her
application on July, 1999. She was told that because her ID did not state religion.
They also confirmed that she should avoid problem. She should not be changed
her name and Muslim religion. They added that Muslim religion mush be stated in ID.
They advised her to submit further statutory declaration. She submitted another
application on March 15, 1999 with refer to a new statutory declaration shown on
February 8, 1999.
She finally approved to change her name to Lina Joy but not her religion on ID.
Her new ID with new name but Muslim religion remained the same. With her new
ID, it made her worse and worse than the original one which was hated by her
country, government and community.
The Malaysian government has established a legitimate interest to deny her by
not changing her ID. On article 18, UDHR has stated "Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and RELIGON; this right included 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.
Based on Article 18, the Malaysian government has completely violated UDHR.
The Malaysian should amend or adopt any UN Charters, Covenant, ICCPR or
UDHR since those laws wanted to promoted peace and respect human rights
thru the globe.

VI. Student Recommendation
I personally think that traditions, cultures, and religions may not be the same, but
human being is definitely the same. Therefore, we should not discriminate each
other since UDHR in the aim of promoting peace and respect human right. The
reason we have war terror now because we misunderstand what GOD want in
this planate. I do think that we have only one GOD for us either you are Christian,
Muslim or Buddish, but we, each and every one of nation have considered your
GOD is superior and other inferior.

There were some the same and some are different between the law of UDHR
and UDHRI as far as I confirmed thru out my study. However, UDHR has
broadened concepts than UDHRI as can be seen. I do know that we have the
same GOD but people just think differently so it is their choices anyway. All
religions regarding Jusus, Buddish, Christian, Muslim and so on, they have
taught us to be good person, to be love, to be peace in the world. The reason we
have the sophisticate conflict up to this day because of the fact that they do
misunderstanding of each other so the war on terror keep going. I firmly believe
and I have a dream that one day we will be in ONE as UDHR have tried very
hard nowadays to promote peace thru out the world.


moen savoeun said...

Hi Bing John!

In your body of your topic, you should provide analytical essay between the two International laws then compare them, which is better. You should describe what related to your topic and just provide examples to support it. But your writing seemed to interpret the articles.

Stan Starygin said...



This comparison seems to be a popular topic with this batch of students. I don't know if I should attribute this to the world's heightened attention to Islam following the 9/11 attacks or whether this interest was sparked by the Lina Joy case that we looked at in class.

There certains aspects of your papers I take issue with. One -- this is a general comment that applies to the whole paper -- it is hard to follow the argument you are making as, structurally, the paper lacks coherence. You seem to have taken the approach of lifting the full text of selected articles from the both declarations, pasting it into your text, and then coming up with comments on either of both. In many cases these comments start to meander to a point where it becomes difficult to keep tabs on the original argument and in a few cases difficult to establish a connection between the original argument and its extension(s). Two, I failed to find a single footnote in the whole paper. Three, I have a good reason to believe that large chunks of text had been lifted from other sources without having been properly footnoted which in these quarters constitutes plagiarism (see the school policy on academic honesty).

I do appreciate your interest in the topic, however, I strongly believe that the quality of this paper should have been much, much higher.