Quelle: http://wolfpangloss.wordpress.com/page/47/
The United Nations was formed in the wake of World War II by the victorious countries, most of which were colonial powers. Their goal in the war was to break up the German, Italian and Japanese empires. Ironically, most of the victors also lost or gave up their colonies after the war, with only the totalitarian Communist powers in Russia and China managing to maintain or significantly expand their territories. It was in this rush of activity after the war that the United Nations was formed and the progressive idealist Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) written. The world rolled along, and then the sixties came along and the ex-colonies joined the UN, and called every assumption of the UN into question.
David G. Littman wrote on this topic in a 2003 article in National Review:
The principal aim of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was to create a framework for a universal code based on mutual consent. [...] In the 1960s, with the arrival of a large number of third-world states that had not been present in 1948, there were discussions as to whether new states were bound by those covenants that had been adopted before they became independent and joined the U.N. By and large, consensus was reached on the universality of human rights, but a new concept — that of “cultural relativism” — was to evolve soon after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.
A crucial part of the debate has consisted in bringing national legislation into conformity with the universal human-rights standards defined in what is usually called the “International Bill of Human Rights” — that is, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Usually, states that ratified the international covenants modified their legislation when it was not in conformity.
But the problem with such goals is that they can be repeatedly nullified through attempts to deliberately confuse universal human-rights issues. One “religious” example of this was the “Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,” proclaimed at UNESCO in 1981 and followed by the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” (CDHRI), adopted in August 1990 by the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers of the 45 OIC countries.
Already in 1981, at the 36th session of the U.N. General Assembly, the representative of Iran had declared that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which could not be implemented by Muslims; if a choice had to be made, he said, between its stipulations and “the divine law of the country,” Iran would always choose Islamic law. Since then, Iran has led the struggle to modify the UDHR.
In the spirit of the comment of the representative of Iran, the Islamic approach to Human Rights is based solely on Islamic Law, or Sharia. It rejects the progressive, universalist ideals expressed in the Universal Declaration for the ideals of submission to Allah and the Sharia.
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)