Eleanor Roosevelt's Role in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Introduction

The connection between Eleanor Roosevelt and human rights rests principally on her leadership of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and her contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted on December 10, 1948. As chair of the Commission, Roosevelt directed negotiations, managed political disagreements, and helped secure international support for a declaration establishing fundamental human rights principles. She was not its sole author. The Declaration emerged through the collective work of diplomats, legal specialists, and representatives of countries with different political and philosophical traditions.

Roosevelt assumed this responsibility during the difficult opening years of the United Nations. The destruction caused by the Second World War had strengthened demands for international human rights protection, but governments remained divided over the relationship between individual freedom, state sovereignty, and economic security. The emerging Cold War made agreement increasingly difficult. Roosevelt's diplomatic achievement must be understood against these divisions and the limited authority available to the new international organization.

Her influence extended beyond chairing meetings or lending her public reputation to the Declaration. She helped organize the drafting process, defended the inclusion of important rights, negotiated with American officials, and advocated for international agreement when further disagreements threatened adoption. Yet the Declaration's language and principles reflected contributions from P. C. Chang, Charles Malik, René Cassin, John Humphrey, and numerous other participants. Her historical significance lies in the particular diplomatic work she performed within that collective undertaking.

1. Eleanor Roosevelt and the UN Commission on Human Rights

Eleanor Roosevelt entered international diplomacy with considerable political experience but without the conventional background of a career diplomat. During Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, she had developed an independent public role in campaigns involving racial equality, women's employment, labor protections, poverty, and the treatment of refugees. Her activities brought her into contact with communities whose interests were frequently neglected in national politics. They also gave her experience negotiating with officials, organizing political support, and translating social demands into proposals that governments could consider.

After Franklin Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, she initially faced uncertainty about her future public responsibilities. President Harry S. Truman subsequently selected her as a United States representative to the first session of the United Nations General Assembly. His appointment letter of December 21, 1945, identified international peace, mutual confidence, and economic and social well-being as central purposes of American participation. It also made clear that United States delegates operated within a governmental delegation and remained subject to official instructions (Truman, 1945).

Roosevelt initially questioned whether she possessed sufficient experience for such an assignment. Her appointment nevertheless reflected an important political development: international diplomacy would increasingly involve humanitarian concerns, public opinion, and questions traditionally treated as domestic affairs. During the General Assembly's first session in London in 1946, she participated in disputes concerning displaced persons, particularly whether refugees from Eastern Europe should be required to return to their countries of origin.

The dispute brought her into direct confrontation with Soviet representative Andrei Vyshinsky. Roosevelt defended the position that individuals who feared returning home should not be subjected to compulsory repatriation. Her opposition reflected a broader conviction that individuals possessed interests which governments could not simply disregard. The experience exposed her to the procedural difficulties of negotiating with representatives operating under different political instructions and helped establish her reputation within the new organization.

Meanwhile, the United Nations was developing the institutions through which human rights would become a permanent subject of international cooperation. The evolution of the United Nations Charter had already placed human rights within the organization's purposes. Article 1(3) identified international cooperation in promoting respect for human rights as an organizational objective, while Articles 55 and 56 addressed international cooperation concerning their promotion. Article 68 required the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to establish commissions for the promotion of human rights (United Nations, 1945).

In February 1946, ECOSOC established a preliminary nine-member body, commonly called the Nuclear Commission on Human Rights, to recommend the organization and responsibilities of a permanent commission. At its inaugural meeting on April 29, Roosevelt was elected chair by acclamation. The full Commission on Human Rights, established later that year, began its first session on January 27, 1947, and unanimously elected her chair. P. C. Chang of China became vice-chair, while Charles Malik of Lebanon served as rapporteur (United Nations, 1947, E/CN.4/SR.1).

The Commission's responsibilities were substantial, but its authority was limited. It could prepare proposals and recommend standards through the United Nations system, but it could not independently impose a binding human rights code upon states. Roosevelt's immediate task was to guide an intergovernmental body toward agreement on principles that governments would accept despite their different understandings of the rights themselves.

2. Roosevelt's Leadership of the Drafting Process

Roosevelt's responsibilities became particularly demanding when the Commission began translating general commitments into proposed international standards. Governments had endorsed human rights language in the UN Charter, but the Charter did not provide a comprehensive catalogue of rights or establish a general procedure for enforcing them. Agreement on the importance of human dignity did not automatically produce agreement on the content of an international bill of rights.

The Commission had to confront several unresolved questions. Delegates disagreed over which rights deserved recognition, the relationship between individual freedoms and governmental responsibilities, and the legal form that international guarantees should take. Some favored concentrating on a declaration that could establish common standards. Others attached greater importance to binding obligations and procedures for addressing violations.

Roosevelt's approach emphasized establishing an orderly negotiating process and identifying questions on which progress remained possible. Her responsibilities required procedural judgment, familiarity with the delegates' positions, and attention to the practical consequences of prolonged disagreement. The Commission's records provide direct evidence of these activities, allowing her contribution to be assessed through identifiable decisions rather than general claims about her personality.

2.1. Organizing Negotiations and Managing Disagreements

At the Commission's first meeting on January 27, 1947, Roosevelt acknowledged her limited knowledge of parliamentary procedure while expressing confidence that the members could accomplish their assignment. She also recognized an institutional difficulty that remained unresolved in 1948: the Commission was preparing human rights standards without possessing a general mechanism for enforcing them. Her opening remarks demonstrated an early awareness of the distinction between proclaiming rights and securing their observance (United Nations, 1947, E/CN.4/SR.1).

Her conduct at subsequent meetings reflected an effort to establish discipline without excluding competing positions. On February 4, 1947, she proposed organizing discussion around the rights to be included, methods of implementation, and the form of the proposed instrument. She sought to limit prolonged procedural arguments and concentrate the delegates' attention on substantive decisions. The meeting records show her attempting to separate immediate drafting questions from issues that could be addressed through further deliberation.

This approach became particularly significant when philosophical disagreements emerged. During the same February meeting, Charles Malik emphasized the independence of the human person and the need to protect conscience and liberty against collective pressure. Soviet representative Valentin Tepliakov challenged aspects of that position, emphasizing the individual's relationship with society. Roosevelt responded by defending fundamental individual freedoms while acknowledging that people lived within organized political communities.

Her intervention did not resolve the competing philosophical positions. It established that the proposed international instrument needed to protect individual liberties even though delegates disagreed about the political and philosophical foundations of those protections. Roosevelt's contribution was to keep the discussion directed toward the formulation of rights rather than allow the Commission's work to become dependent on agreement about the ideal organization of society.

The demands of chairmanship extended beyond formal debate. Roosevelt reviewed documentation, consulted advisers, maintained contact with delegates, and sought opportunities for cooperation outside scheduled meetings. John F. Sears's historical account describes her use of informal social occasions to establish relationships among participants who frequently disagreed. Such activities formed part of her diplomatic practice, although their precise influence on individual decisions cannot be established simply from the fact that those meetings occurred (Sears, 2008).

2.2. Expanding the Drafting Committee and Advancing the Text

An early institutional dispute concerned the composition of the group responsible for preparing the Declaration. In February 1947, the Commission entrusted preliminary drafting work to Roosevelt, Vice-Chair P. C. Chang, and Rapporteur Charles Malik, assisted by the United Nations Secretariat. This arrangement provided a smaller group through which the initial work could proceed, but its limited membership raised concerns about geographical representation.

In March 1947, Roosevelt communicated with the president of ECOSOC concerning the enlargement of the drafting group. The correspondence, recorded in UN document E/383, formed part of the process leading to the establishment of an eight-country Drafting Committee. Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom joined the original representatives of China, Lebanon, and the United States. ECOSOC took note of the expanded committee, while Resolution 46(IV) of March 28, 1947, established the timetable for preparing and reviewing the proposed international bill of rights (United Nations, 1947, E/383; ECOSOC, 1947).

The enlargement responded to concerns about representation in a process intended to produce internationally applicable principles. It also introduced additional national perspectives and opportunities for disagreement. Roosevelt's responsibilities included maintaining progress while allowing representatives from different governments to examine the proposed rights and participate in their formulation.

The expanded Drafting Committee first met in June 1947. It considered a preliminary outline prepared by the Secretariat, followed by further revisions involving René Cassin and other participants. Work continued during the Commission's meetings in December 1947 and in 1948, with successive drafts examined and amended. Roosevelt remained involved in directing discussion, while the technical preparation of the text depended heavily on other members and Secretariat officials.

Roosevelt also preferred wording that could be understood outside diplomatic and legal circles. She believed that a declaration addressing fundamental human rights would have limited public influence if its meaning remained inaccessible to ordinary readers. Her preference for clear language occasionally conflicted with the concerns of legal specialists seeking more precise formulations. The resulting text reflected both demands, although Roosevelt did not obtain the exceptionally brief declaration she had initially favored.

3. Who Drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The question of who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has often produced misleadingly simple answers. Roosevelt is frequently associated with its authorship because she chaired the Commission responsible for its development and became its most recognizable international advocate. René Cassin has also received prominent recognition for his drafting work. Neither attribution adequately describes the institutional process through which the Declaration acquired its final language.

The document emerged through several stages of preparation and revision. The United Nations Secretariat collected existing human rights instruments and proposals, a smaller drafting group considered their possible incorporation, and the expanded Drafting Committee examined successive texts. The Commission then revised the proposed Declaration before forwarding it through ECOSOC to the General Assembly. Each stage created opportunities for governments and individual representatives to modify its substance.

The negotiations also involved competing interpretations of what constitutes a human right, the source of individual entitlements, and the responsibilities of governments. These questions could not be settled through technical drafting alone. Understanding the Declaration's authorship requires attention to those who prepared its language, those who shaped its philosophical foundations, and those who negotiated its political acceptance.

3.1. John Humphrey and René Cassin: Drafting the Text

John Peters Humphrey, a Canadian legal scholar appointed director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights, undertook the initial documentary work. Following the first meetings of Roosevelt, Chang, and Malik in early 1947, Humphrey was asked to prepare a preliminary outline. Working with the Secretariat, he examined existing bills of rights, constitutional provisions, international proposals, and material submitted for the Commission's consideration.

The resulting document, E/CN.4/AC.1/3, contained forty-eight proposed articles and provided the Drafting Committee with a substantial basis for discussion. Humphrey's work assembled a wide range of potential rights in a form that delegates could examine systematically. His preliminary outline was neither the final Declaration nor simply a reproduction of American constitutional principles. Its preparation drew upon multiple sources and reflected the broader effort to identify rights with international application (United Nations, 1947, E/CN.4/AC.1/3).

René Cassin, the French jurist and member of the Drafting Committee, subsequently undertook an important restructuring of the Secretariat's material. He organized its provisions into a more coherent text, developed introductory principles, and helped formulate the relationship between different categories of rights. His experience in legal drafting allowed him to develop a declaration with a clearer internal arrangement.

Cassin's contribution did not displace Humphrey's preliminary work. Substantial material from the Secretariat's outline remained influential, although later negotiations altered wording, structure, and emphasis. The Declaration's eventual form depended on several successive drafting exercises rather than a single original manuscript. The text continued to change after Cassin's intervention, including during the Commission's 1948 deliberations and the General Assembly's subsequent examination.

Roosevelt's responsibilities differed from those of both men. She did not prepare the original forty-eight-article outline or undertake Cassin's principal restructuring exercise. Her contribution involved organizing the negotiations through which their work could be examined, contested, amended, and accepted. These different responsibilities illustrate the combination of technical drafting and political negotiation involved in developing international standards.

3.2. P. C. Chang and Charles Malik: Philosophical Contributions

Peng-chun Chang, representing China, brought a different intellectual perspective to the Commission. A philosopher, educator, and diplomat familiar with Chinese and Western traditions, he challenged assumptions that a universal declaration should depend on a single philosophical or religious understanding of human nature. He opposed making the text's authority dependent on particular references to God or natural law that could prove unacceptable to representatives of other traditions.

Chang's interventions were especially relevant because universality required more than agreement among European and American governments. A declaration presented as applicable to all human beings needed language that people from different cultural and religious backgrounds could recognize. His negotiating approach drew upon philosophical comparison and sought formulations that could accommodate competing views without imposing one intellectual tradition upon every participant.

Charles Malik, representing Lebanon, approached the drafting process with particular concern for the human person's independence, conscience, and freedom of thought. His philosophical arguments emphasized the danger that political and social organizations could subordinate individuals to collective objectives. As Commission rapporteur, he also had important responsibilities for recording and communicating its work. His interventions extended to the substance of the Declaration and the meaning of its foundational principles.

The exchanges between Chang and Malik exposed differences that could not be dismissed as competing national interests. They concerned the intellectual foundations of rights, the language of human dignity, and whether internationally recognized freedoms required a shared philosophical justification. Their contributions helped shape the Declaration's treatment of individual rights without making agreement dependent upon acceptance of one philosophical doctrine.

Malik later assumed a separate institutional responsibility as chairman of the General Assembly's Third Committee during the decisive 1948 negotiations. This placed him in charge of proceedings through which the Commission's draft underwent extensive examination and amendment. His leadership of that committee was an independent contribution to the Declaration's adoption, distinct from Roosevelt's chairmanship of the Commission on Human Rights.

3.3. Contributions from Other States and Women Delegates

The drafting committee also included participants whose contributions extended beyond the better-known figures. Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile strongly advocated recognition of economic and social rights, reflecting concern that political liberties alone could not guarantee a dignified existence. His position formed part of a wider Latin American contribution to the development of international human rights standards, visible before the Declaration's drafting in debates surrounding the creation of the United Nations.

Representatives of other countries raised questions about equality, education, religion, social protection, and national economic circumstances. Their participation affected the range of rights included in the final text and challenged the assumption that the Declaration was exclusively an Anglo-American or European initiative. Its political foundations were broader, although the participating governments did not possess equal international influence and much of the colonial world remained excluded from independent representation.

Women delegates also made contributions that cannot be attributed to Roosevelt. Hansa Mehta of India, who participated in the Commission's work, is widely credited with securing the replacement of gender-exclusive language in Article 1 with the formulation that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The change rejected wording that could suggest that men were the principal subjects of the Declaration.

Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic advocated explicit recognition of the equality of men and women in the Declaration's preamble. Begum Shaista Ikramullah of Pakistan supported stronger recognition of equality in marriage, while other women representatives contributed to discussions of discrimination and equal rights. The Commission on the Status of Women also participated in examining language concerning women's rights, reflecting concerns that were not confined to the Commission chaired by Roosevelt (United Nations, 1948).

These contributions reveal an important limit in accounts centered exclusively on Roosevelt. She provided influential leadership, but other participants supplied legal formulations, philosophical arguments, and substantive amendments that became part of the Declaration. Its international character depended on that wider participation, even though universal agreement remained constrained by the political and institutional conditions of 1948.

4. Political and Ideological Conflicts in the Negotiations

The drafting negotiations occurred as cooperation among the principal Allied powers gave way to increasingly hostile relations. By 1947, the United States and Soviet Union disagreed over political organization, security arrangements, economic reconstruction, and the future of Europe. These disputes influenced discussions within the Commission, where representatives frequently interpreted proposed human rights guarantees through the political assumptions of their governments.

The disagreements reflected a broader change in the history of international law. The UN Charter had made the promotion of human rights an international concern, but states continued to defend different understandings of sovereignty and domestic authority. The Commission was attempting to establish standards governing the treatment of individuals while operating within an international system in which governments remained the principal decision-makers.

Roosevelt encountered disagreements over the substance of rights and the permissible authority of governments to limit them. Some arose directly from Cold War ideological divisions. Others involved religious convictions, economic development, legal traditions, and the difficulties of applying common principles under different constitutional systems. The negotiations cannot be understood adequately as a contest between two uniform political blocs.

4.1. Individual Liberty and the Authority of the State

One of the Commission's most significant disagreements concerned the relationship between individual freedom and collective authority. During the February 1947 deliberations, Malik argued that personal liberty required protection against pressures imposed by governments and other organizations. He regarded freedom of conscience and independent judgment as fundamental to the dignity of the human person.

Soviet representative Valentin Tepliakov objected to aspects of Malik's formulation, arguing that individuals could not be understood independently of the communities and social arrangements that sustained them. His intervention reflected a different understanding of the relationship between rights, society, and governmental responsibility. The dispute had practical implications for the wording of provisions concerning expression, belief, and political freedom.

Roosevelt's response defended the importance of protecting individuals within organized political communities. She accepted that societies had legitimate collective interests but resisted the proposition that these interests could justify removing fundamental liberties. Her position reflected a concern strengthened by the experience of authoritarian government before and during the Second World War: constitutional and political arrangements could become instruments of repression when individuals lacked protections against public authority.

The disagreement became especially concrete in debates about freedom of movement. In her September 1948 Sorbonne speech, Roosevelt criticized a Soviet proposal that would have qualified the right to leave a country by reference to procedures established under national law. She argued that such language could allow governments to restrict the very freedom the proposed provision was supposed to protect (Roosevelt, 1948a).

Her criticism expressed a position Roosevelt attributed to the Soviet representative and rejected in her public address. It also illustrated a broader question raised by the negotiations: whether a declaration could recognize individual freedoms while leaving their effective exercise entirely dependent on restrictions established by national governments.

Roosevelt's willingness to negotiate wording did not mean that she accepted every proposed qualification. Her Sorbonne address defended the substantive protection of fundamental liberties and presented certain governmental restrictions as incompatible with that objective. The position was part of her diplomatic advocacy, although the final Declaration reflected negotiations among many governments rather than the complete adoption of her preferred formulations.

4.2. Economic Security and the Scope of Human Rights

Disagreements over economic and social rights were equally substantial. Several delegates regarded employment, education, social security, and adequate living conditions as essential components of human dignity. Others feared that their inclusion would require governments to undertake obligations that depended on national economic resources or political choices. The resulting negotiations concerned both the recognition of these rights and the responsibilities associated with their realization.

Roosevelt's position was influenced by her experience with American social reform. During the Great Depression and the New Deal, she had supported measures addressing unemployment, poverty, housing, and inequalities of opportunity. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, announced in 1941, had included freedom from want alongside freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and freedom from fear. His 1944 proposal for an economic bill of rights further reinforced the connection between material security and individual freedom.

For Eleanor Roosevelt, civil liberty could lose much of its practical value when individuals lacked adequate food, employment, education, or basic security. She supported recognizing economic and social rights in the Declaration. Her position differed, however, from the proposition that every state must adopt identical economic arrangements or provide every benefit through direct governmental administration.

That distinction became central to the negotiations. Governments operating under different political and economic systems could accept the general importance of social protection while disagreeing about the means of providing it. The Declaration eventually recognized economic, social, and cultural rights in Articles 22–27, including social security, work, education, and participation in cultural life. These provisions formed part of the same instrument as civil and political freedoms (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

Roosevelt's position also demonstrates the limitations of treating the Commission's discussions as an opposition between Western liberty and socialist welfare. Latin American delegates advocated social rights, while Roosevelt herself regarded economic insecurity as a serious threat to human freedom. The final formulation reflected overlapping concerns, different governmental interpretations, and negotiated compromises rather than the unqualified victory of one ideological position.

5. Roosevelt and the Political Constraints of US Diplomacy

Roosevelt's international reputation sometimes obscures the restrictions under which she operated as an American delegate. She represented a government whose support was important to the Declaration's adoption but whose officials disagreed about the desirability and possible consequences of international human rights commitments. Her diplomatic influence depended partly on securing American acceptance of positions that she considered necessary for an internationally acceptable document.

The United States had participated in creating the United Nations, yet American officials remained concerned about international involvement in domestic affairs. Questions of federalism, constitutional authority, and national sovereignty complicated proposals concerning legally enforceable human rights. In particular, a binding covenant could raise questions about the allocation of responsibilities between federal and state governments and the potential need for domestic legislative changes.

Resistance also emerged within the State Department. John F. Sears's historical account identifies Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett as an opponent of aspects of the international human rights project, particularly proposals involving economic and social rights and legally binding commitments. Roosevelt sought to preserve American participation and persuade officials that a broadly supported declaration could advance international cooperation without immediately creating the obligations associated with a treaty (Sears, 2008).

The American position developed through consultations and decisions involving several officials. By September 1948, Secretary of State George C. Marshall publicly supported adoption of the Declaration, calling upon the General Assembly to approve it as an international standard of conduct. His address should be distinguished from earlier reservations within the Department rather than treated as evidence that the entire American administration opposed the project.

The minutes of the United States delegation's meeting on September 24, 1948, record a more precise position. Durward Sandifer recommended supporting the Declaration's adoption without reopening it to extensive amendments. Roosevelt agreed with the proposed negotiating approach, while other members discussed the instrument's legal implications. The delegation was advised that adoption would not create obligations beyond those already arising under the UN Charter, although it would express a political commitment to the principles proclaimed (United States Department of State, 1948).

Roosevelt's support for economic and social rights illustrates the distinction between personal conviction and official diplomatic position. She accepted the importance of employment, education, and social protection, but the United States resisted interpretations requiring governments to secure those rights exclusively through direct governmental provision. The American delegation's eventual acceptance of the Declaration was accompanied by an interpretation intended to preserve flexibility in national implementation.

Her statement to the General Assembly on December 9, 1948, made this position explicit. Roosevelt explained that the United States did not interpret the Declaration's economic, social, and cultural provisions as necessarily requiring their enjoyment to be assured through direct governmental action. She also invoked Article 29 when discussing permissible limitations on the exercise of rights (Roosevelt, 1948b).

Article 29(2) provides that limitations must be determined by law and directed solely toward securing recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society. These conditions are significant. The provision does not establish an unrestricted governmental power to curtail rights whenever domestic authorities invoke public order or public welfare.

Roosevelt's remarks expressed the American delegation's interpretation of the Declaration, including its position concerning limitations and governmental responsibility. They should not be treated as an authoritative legal interpretation binding other states. The distinction illustrates how governments could support a common declaration while retaining different views about the precise implications of its provisions.

Racial discrimination presented a further contradiction. The United States promoted international equality while segregation, discriminatory laws, and unequal access to political and economic opportunities remained embedded in American society. Soviet representatives used these conditions to challenge American claims about democracy and individual freedom. The criticism drew attention to established inequalities within the United States, although it formed part of a broader political dispute in which Soviet domestic practices also faced criticism.

Roosevelt had campaigned against racial discrimination long before joining the United Nations. She regarded the Declaration's equality and nondiscrimination provisions as relevant to the continuing American struggle for civil rights. Yet her capacity to alter domestic political resistance was limited. Southern opposition to federal civil rights measures and concerns about international obligations complicated the government's position.

The negotiations exposed a tension between the universality of proclaimed rights and the willingness of states to accept their consequences. Roosevelt helped secure American support for the Declaration, but that support remained accompanied by constitutional and political qualifications. The result was an important diplomatic agreement that did not resolve the contradictions between American international advocacy and domestic practice.

6. Why a Declaration Preceded a Binding Human Rights Covenant

The Commission's original responsibilities extended beyond preparing a statement of human rights principles. Its broader assignment contemplated an international bill of rights involving a declaration, a legally binding covenant, and arrangements for implementation. These elements raised different legal and diplomatic difficulties. Governments might accept a statement of common standards while resisting treaty obligations requiring changes to national legislation or permitting international examination of their conduct.

The distinction became particularly significant during the Commission's second session in Geneva in December 1947. The Commission organized separate working groups addressing the declaration, the covenant, and implementation arrangements. Roosevelt chaired the group concerned with the Declaration, while work continued on the other elements. The decision allowed progress on related tasks without requiring complete agreement on enforcement before any international statement could emerge.

The legal differences between the instruments were substantial. A covenant would become binding upon states accepting it in accordance with the relevant treaty provisions. A declaration adopted by the General Assembly, by contrast, would express internationally endorsed principles without itself operating as a treaty. It could establish expectations and provide a reference for national and international action, but its adoption would not automatically create a comprehensive system of judicially enforceable obligations.

Roosevelt understood the advantage of progressing with the Declaration, although she did not regard the absence of enforcement as satisfactory. She wanted governments to recognize standards against which their conduct could be assessed. At the same time, she understood that insistence on immediate agreement over implementation might prevent the Commission from producing an instrument capable of securing broad political support.

By June 1948, the Commission had completed its revised declaration but had not finished the proposed covenant or implementation arrangements. Its draft was approved by twelve votes in favor and four abstentions before being transmitted through ECOSOC for General Assembly consideration. Further negotiation would still be required before the Declaration reached its final form (United Nations, 1948, E/800).

The legal character of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be distinguished from the binding obligations established by the UN Charter. Articles 55 and 56 address international cooperation concerning human rights, while the Declaration supplied a more detailed statement of standards to be promoted. It did not independently transform all thirty of its articles into treaty obligations. The customary status of particular human rights rules must be assessed separately, on the basis of the evidence supporting each rule.

The eventual adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966 demonstrated that binding human rights agreements required further negotiation. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force on January 3, 1976, followed by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on March 23, 1976. Their development reflected the continuing effort to give legal form to rights proclaimed in 1948, rather than the direct completion of Roosevelt's personal diplomatic work.

Roosevelt's support for advancing the Declaration reflected a judgment about what the Commission could accomplish under the circumstances. A common statement of principles was achievable before governments had settled the much more difficult questions of enforceable obligations and international supervision. The approach produced a document with substantial political authority while leaving important legal questions for subsequent negotiations.

7. Roosevelt's Campaign for the Declaration's Adoption in 1948

Completion of the Commission's draft did not guarantee its acceptance by the General Assembly. By the summer of 1948, the Commission had conducted extensive negotiations, but the document still required consideration by the United Nations' wider membership. Governments that had not participated directly in the drafting committee would have an opportunity to propose changes, challenge particular provisions, and express their own interpretations.

The international political environment had also deteriorated. The Soviet blockade of Berlin, growing distrust between Western governments and the Soviet Union, and disputes concerning political developments in Eastern Europe intensified the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations. The Declaration increasingly became a subject of ideological competition, although many substantive disagreements had existed before the Cold War division became entrenched.

Roosevelt approached the final negotiations through diplomatic advocacy and public communication. As an American representative and continuing chair of the Commission on Human Rights, she possessed detailed knowledge of the drafting process and the compromises previously negotiated. She could defend the Commission's text and encourage agreement, but she could not determine how other governments would vote or control the proceedings of the General Assembly's Third Committee.

7.1. The Sorbonne Speech and Roosevelt's Public Diplomacy

On September 28, 1948, Roosevelt delivered The Struggle for Human Rights at the Sorbonne in Paris. Her speech addressed the relationship between human freedom, democratic government, and international peace at a moment when the Declaration was approaching consideration by the General Assembly. It was a political intervention intended to defend the principles underlying the proposed instrument and explain why their acceptance had become urgent.

Roosevelt situated the development of international human rights within the experience of the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations. She argued that international peace depended partly on governments respecting fundamental freedoms. The speech emphasized freedom of expression, religion, assembly, and political participation, while criticizing forms of government that subordinated individual judgment to centralized political authority (Roosevelt, 1948a).

A major part of the address concerned disagreements between Western democratic and Soviet understandings of liberty. Roosevelt challenged Soviet claims concerning the protection of political freedoms under state-controlled institutions. Her criticism extended to trade unions, freedom of the press, and the ability of citizens to participate in political decisions. These arguments expressed her political assessment of Soviet governmental practices rather than findings made by an international judicial or supervisory body.

Her discussion of employment illustrated the relationship she drew between economic security and liberty. Roosevelt rejected the proposition that full employment necessarily demonstrated freedom if individuals lacked the opportunity to choose their occupations or resist compulsory assignments. She also acknowledged that severe economic insecurity could deprive formally recognized freedoms of practical value. The argument reflected her attempt to defend individual autonomy without dismissing the importance of social and economic protection.

Roosevelt did not portray the United States as a country that had already achieved complete equality. She acknowledged American discrimination and defended democratic processes as means through which such problems could be challenged. Her confidence in gradual domestic reform also reflected the limitations of the American political position. The speech's principal purpose was to distinguish the conception of individual liberty she advocated from the forms of governmental authority she criticized.

Public communication complemented Roosevelt's work within the United Nations. Through speeches, interviews, and her syndicated My Day column, she explained the negotiations and argued for the Declaration's adoption. Her published commentary expressed frustration with prolonged procedural disputes and repeated attempts to reconsider questions already discussed by the Commission.

These activities demonstrate the public dimension of her diplomatic campaign, although their independent influence on individual governments' voting decisions cannot be established from her speeches alone. Roosevelt believed international human rights principles needed to be intelligible beyond diplomatic institutions. Public understanding could not substitute for legal enforcement, but it could encourage political accountability and strengthen demands that governments respect the standards they had endorsed.

7.2. Final Negotiations and the December 10 Vote

The General Assembly referred the proposed Declaration to its Third Committee in September 1948. The Committee, responsible for social, humanitarian, and cultural questions, began examining the text on September 30. Its membership included representatives of the fifty-eight United Nations member states, extending deliberations beyond the smaller Commission and Drafting Committee.

The proceedings were extensive. The Third Committee's report, A/777, records prolonged consideration of the draft and numerous proposed changes. The UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library's drafting history identifies 168 formal draft resolutions containing amendments to different provisions. The volume of proposals demonstrates how much remained contested even after the Commission had completed its work (United Nations General Assembly, 1948, A/777).

Charles Malik chaired the Third Committee and directed its proceedings through debates over individual articles. Roosevelt participated as the United States representative while continuing to hold the chairmanship of the Commission on Human Rights. Her experience gave her detailed knowledge of the compromises already negotiated, but it did not provide authority to prevent other governments from proposing changes.

The United States delegation discussed its preferred negotiating approach before the Committee's detailed examination. Minutes dated September 24, 1948, show that American officials favored adoption without extensive amendments because reopening the text could prolong debate and produce provisions the government would find unacceptable. Roosevelt agreed with that approach, while recognizing that other delegations intended to submit amendments (United States Department of State, 1948).

The Committee's deliberations nevertheless produced substantive changes. Delegations debated individual freedoms, economic and social guarantees, equality, religious liberty, and limitations upon rights. Some disagreements concerned the meaning of particular provisions, while others reflected national constitutional arrangements or ideological opposition. Roosevelt defended the Commission's work, but the final text remained subject to negotiation among the wider membership.

The drafting process also demonstrated the importance of Malik's separate procedural leadership. As Third Committee chair, he managed detailed examination of the text and the voting on proposed provisions. Roosevelt's contribution during this stage was principally diplomatic advocacy and the defense of positions supported by the United States delegation. The two officials performed related but institutionally distinct responsibilities.

At its 178th meeting in December, the Third Committee approved the draft Declaration by 29 votes in favor, none against, and seven abstentions. The result followed prolonged debates and revisions before the approved text was transmitted to the General Assembly. It represented a major advance toward adoption, although the plenary body retained responsibility for the final decision (United Nations General Assembly, 1948, A/777).

On December 9, Roosevelt addressed the General Assembly in support of adoption. She acknowledged that the Declaration reflected contributions from numerous governments and that no delegation had obtained everything it wanted. She explained that the United States supported the instrument as a whole despite reservations about particular formulations (Roosevelt, 1948b).

Her statement also clarified the document's legal character. Roosevelt distinguished the Declaration from a treaty and from an international agreement directly imposing legal obligations. She presented it as a statement of principles intended to establish common standards of conduct, while recognizing that governments had not reached complete agreement about the implementation of every right.

On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through Resolution 217 A (III), with 48 votes in favor, none against, and eight abstentions. The Soviet Union, the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa abstained. Honduras and Yemen did not participate in the vote. China, among the principal participants in the drafting process, voted in favor (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

The abstentions reflected different objections rather than one coordinated interpretation of the document. Soviet representatives had challenged provisions concerning individual freedoms and governmental authority. Saudi Arabia raised objections associated with religious principles, while South Africa resisted aspects of the Declaration's conception of equality and rights. The absence of votes against the final resolution did not mean that all participating governments accepted its principles without qualification.

Following adoption, General Assembly President Herbert Evatt acknowledged Roosevelt's contribution, and the delegates gave her a standing ovation. The recognition reflected the high regard in which many contemporaries held her work. It did not diminish the responsibilities exercised by Malik, the textual contributions of Humphrey and Cassin, or the participation of representatives whose amendments influenced the final text.

The vote was a substantial diplomatic achievement. Governments divided by ideology, national interests, and competing understandings of human rights had accepted a common international declaration. Roosevelt contributed to that outcome through sustained negotiation and advocacy, although the available historical record does not establish that she alone determined the result.

8. Roosevelt's Influence on Modern International Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights altered the international treatment of human rights by providing a widely endorsed statement of principles applicable to human beings regardless of nationality or political system. Its adoption did not create a comprehensive enforcement mechanism, but it established a common international standard that governments, institutions, and individuals could invoke when discussing fundamental freedoms and human dignity.

The Declaration's subsequent significance extended beyond the immediate intentions of its principal drafters. It influenced later international treaties, national constitutional provisions, international institutional practice, and human rights advocacy. The development of these mechanisms formed part of the broader evolution of international human rights law, in which states gradually accepted more detailed obligations concerning the treatment of individuals.

Roosevelt's contribution to that development must be understood primarily through the diplomatic achievement of 1948. She helped maintain negotiations that produced internationally recognized standards at a time when agreement on binding enforcement remained politically unattainable. The Declaration subsequently provided a common vocabulary for discussing human rights violations, governmental responsibilities, and the dignity of individuals, although its later legal development involved actors and decisions beyond Roosevelt's control.

Her work also reflected an important change in international diplomacy. Roosevelt brought experience in social reform, public communication, and political organization to negotiations traditionally associated with government officials and legal specialists. Her record demonstrates that international standard-setting involved political persuasion, public advocacy, and the management of disagreements alongside the preparation of legal language.

The Declaration's universal aspirations were nevertheless constrained by the circumstances of its adoption. Many territories remained under colonial rule, limiting their participation as independent states in the negotiations. Inequalities of influence between governments affected the process, and delegates retained different understandings of rights they ultimately endorsed. The Declaration did not resolve the tension between international human rights standards and the continuing authority of states over their domestic legal systems.

Nor did its adoption immediately transform every proclaimed principle into binding customary international law. Some rights expressed in the Declaration correspond to obligations established through treaties or customary rules, but the existence and scope of any particular legal obligation depend on the relevant legal source. The Declaration's political authority and its subsequent influence on legal interpretation must be distinguished from the existence of identical binding obligations under every provision.

Roosevelt understood that adoption represented an initial achievement rather than the completion of international human rights protection. She continued to support the development of stronger international standards and mechanisms after 1948. Her public advocacy reflected the conviction that human rights would remain ineffective unless governments and individuals worked to give them practical meaning.

Assessing her historical influence requires separating documented achievements from speculation about what might have happened without her. The Commission's records establish her chairmanship, procedural interventions, participation in negotiations, and involvement in securing political support. Contemporary recognition and subsequent historical scholarship support the conclusion that her contribution was substantial. They do not establish that adoption would necessarily have failed in her absence.

The Declaration was the product of many actors whose contributions differed in character. Humphrey supplied essential preliminary drafting material, Cassin reorganized important elements of the text, Chang and Malik shaped its philosophical debates, and other representatives influenced particular rights and formulations. Roosevelt's distinctive contribution was her political leadership of a process through which these contributions could be negotiated and presented for international acceptance.

The achievement illustrates the relationship between diplomacy and the development of international law. The 1948 Declaration did not itself create the detailed treaty obligations that emerged through subsequent negotiations. It supplied a common statement of principles around which further international legal development could occur. Roosevelt helped secure that initial agreement while recognizing that effective protection would require continued political commitment and institutional action.

Conclusion

Eleanor Roosevelt's principal contribution to the emergence of modern international human rights standards was her diplomatic leadership during the development and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, she organized negotiations, defended fundamental freedoms, supported the inclusion of economic and social rights, and worked to preserve international cooperation despite ideological disagreements. Her political influence helped secure American participation and supported the Declaration's adoption on December 10, 1948.

Her achievement must be distinguished from the Declaration's collective authorship. John Humphrey, René Cassin, P. C. Chang, Charles Malik, and numerous other participants contributed to its language, philosophical foundations, and final acceptance. Roosevelt's leadership was substantial, but the Declaration reflected negotiations among governments and individuals representing different legal and political traditions.

Roosevelt's lasting significance lies in helping establish a common international statement of human rights principles when governments remained deeply divided over their meaning and implementation. The Declaration did not immediately create a comprehensive system of enforceable obligations, and its subsequent legal influence depended on developments beyond her control. Her contribution was to help make international agreement achievable and to advance the recognition that protecting human dignity was a legitimate concern of the international community.

References

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=TREATY (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976, 993 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-3&src=IND (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Roosevelt, E. (1948a) ‘The Struggle for Human Rights’, speech delivered at the Sorbonne, Paris, 28 September 1948. Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, The George Washington University [online]. Available at: https://erpapers.columbian.gwu.edu/struggle-human-rights-1948 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Roosevelt, E. (1948b) ‘Statement to the United Nations’ General Assembly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, 9 December 1948. Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, The George Washington University [online]. Available at: https://erpapers.columbian.gwu.edu/statement-united-nations-general-assembly-universal-declaration-human-rights-1948 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Roosevelt, F.D. (1941) ‘Annual Message to Congress (Four Freedoms Speech)’, 6 January 1941. National Archives, Records of the United States Senate, SEN 77A-H1, Record Group 46 [online]. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-franklin-roosevelts-annual-message-to-congress (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Roosevelt, F.D. (1944) ‘State of the Union Message to Congress’, 11 January 1944. Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum [online]. Available at: https://www.fdrlibrary.org/address-text (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Sears, J.F. (2008) Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva: The Task Force – Celebrating Eleanor Roosevelt. Available at: https://www.fdrlibrary.org/documents/356632/390886/sears.pdf/c300e130-b6e6-4580-8bf1-07b72195b370 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

Truman, H.S. (1945) ‘Harry Truman to Eleanor Roosevelt, December 21, 1945’. Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, The George Washington University [online]. Available at: https://erpapers.columbian.gwu.edu/harry-truman-eleanor-roosevelt-december-21-1945 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations (n.d.) Women Who Shaped the Universal Declaration [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/observances/human-rights-day/women-who-shaped-the-universal-declaration (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1947a) Summary Record of the First Meeting, Held at Lake Success, New York, on Monday, 27 January 1947, E/CN.4/SR.1, 28 January. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/626602 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1947b) Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting, Held at Lake Success, New York, on Tuesday, 4 February 1947, E/CN.4/SR.14, 5 February. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/626959/files/E_CN.4_SR.14-EN.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1948) Report of the Third Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Lake Success, 24 May to 18 June 1948, E/800, 28 June. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/600120 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library (n.d.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Drafting History: General Assembly Third Session – Third Committee [online]. Available at: https://research.un.org/en/undhr/ga/thirdcommittee (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Department of Social Affairs, Division of Human Rights (1947) Draft Outline of International Bill of Rights, E/CN.4/AC.1/3, 4 June. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/621094 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Economic and Social Council (1947a) Report of the Commission on Human Rights: Letter Dated 24 March 1947 from the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to the President of the Economic and Social Council, E/383, 27 March. Available at: https://research.un.org/en/undhr/ecosoc/4 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations Economic and Social Council (1947b) Human Rights, Resolution 46(IV), E/RES/46(IV), 28 March. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/212024 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (1948a) Draft International Declaration of Human Rights: Report of the Third Committee, A/777, 7 December. Paris: United Nations. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/622107 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (1948b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Resolution 217 A (III), A/RES/217(III) A, adopted 10 December 1948, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Volume I, pp. 71–77. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/666853 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).

United States Department of State (1948) ‘Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the Third Regular Session of the General Assembly, Paris, September 24, 1948’, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1, Document 183. Office of the Historian [online]. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v01p1/d183 (Accessed: 29 October 2026).