The InterAction Council is an association of former state presidents and heads of governments from across the world. To mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and following many years of preparation together with advisors from all societies, the InterAction Council proposed a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities for discussion by the United Nations. This list of responsibilities was to support and complement the Human Rights Declaration.

This initiative aroused a lively debate on the issue of human rights, which we will address and document within the scope of this advanced subject. Several consecutive articles taken and translated from the weekly German newspaper "Die Zeit" serve in illustrating the debate's main issues and arguments with regard to human rights and human responsibilities and their relationship to each other, as already touched upon in the advanced subjects of world ethic

We have chosen the following articles on the debate:

(Helmut Schmidt is the former Federal Chancellor of Germany and honorary chairman of the InterAction Council, which drew up and proposed the "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" to the General Assembly of the United Nations.)

[Die Zeit dated 03.10.1997]

It is completely natural that a nation should declare the guaranteeing of basic rights - called "human rights" in the language of the United Nations (UN) - as being its most important task following the end of a dictatorship. In the same spirit, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a completely natural, necessary and fine declaration of intention on the part of the United Nations following the simultaneous demise of Hitler's dictatorship in Europe and Japan's military dictatorship in east and south-east Asia.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

The creation of a democratic system of government goes hand-in-hand with the establishment of the individual's fundamental rights. And this is, thankfully, what happened following the end of the dictatorships under Mussolini and Hitler, as well as those in eastern Europe following the fall of the communist leaders. Events over the past decades, however, have also shown that democracy and human rights can easily be rendered as nothing more than words on a piece of paper, if, despite recognition of such rights, a government fails to stand up for and actually work towards securing the effectiveness of democracy and human rights. On the other hand, however, others clearly misunderstand their meaning and regard personal freedom as the right to exercise and implement their rights without taking any personal responsibility for their actions. Indeed, were everyone to exercise exclusively their own rights without accepting any responsibility or burden for their actions, a people and a state - or even humanity as a whole - could fall into hostility, conflict and eventually into chaos.

Without a sense of responsibility on the part of the individual, freedom can easily be reduced to supremacy of the strong and powerful. It is for this reason that politicians and citizens alike must constantly work to ensure that rights and responsibilities are kept in balance.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Today, almost 50 years on from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, their essential ethical imperative vis-à-vis humanity and their two-hundred sovereign states is in danger. For one thing, the term "human rights" is used by some western politicians, especially in the US, as a hostile term and instrument of aggression in carrying out foreign policy. Furthermore, this is done in a very selective way: Against countries such as China, Iran and Libya, but not against countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Nigeria. The reasons for such bias can be found in economic and strategic interests.

On the other hand, human rights are misinterpreted by some Muslims, Hindus and Confucians as being a typical western concept, with human rights even being denounced as an instrument for expanding the power base of western countries. We are also aware of the serious and important accusation, especially out of Asia, that the concept of basic rights ignores or even fails to appreciate the necessity of an individual's virtues and responsibilities vis-à-vis the family, community, society and the state. Some Asians believe there is a fundamental difference between the western and Asian understandings of human dignity.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

It is indisputable: The image of man and the understanding of human dignity differs within every society and culture - depending on religious or philosophical location. Nevertheless, large differences do indeed exist between the understanding of human dignity in Europe and America, and the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Confucius understanding of dignity in Asia - not to mention communism in its many forms.

It is, then, imaginable that a clash of civilizations as predicted by Samuel Huntington could actually happen. The explosion of the world's population - quadrupled! - during the 20th century along with the concentration of people in large cities is set to continue well into the 21st century. For this reason - and setting aside the ending of the bipolar conflict between the Soviet Union and the west - power conflicts will also take place during the 21st century. Let us hope that they are resolved with more success than during the 20th century. It is feared, however, that they could lead to a conflict between two principally different and even deeply hostile cultures. Fundamentalists on both sides, who for the most part make up only a sidelined minority on the present global stage, could provide the trigger and leadership for mass hysteria. The current expansion and intensification of the world economy - globalization - will not provide protection against such events, since new conflicts of interest are bound to be a result of this process.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Since the demise of the communist bloc and especially since the opening of China, the number of people participating in the global economy has almost doubled. In addition to this, enormous technological advances - especially in the fields of telecommunications, air travel and container shipping - and an historically high level of liberalization of world trade, especially in the money and capital markets have taken place. At the beginning of the new century, almost all of the world's nations and their economies will be more dependent on each other than in all previous generations. At the same time, however, globalization is leading to previously unknown rivalries. This is destined to lead to an increased number of attempts to distort the competitive situation to a nation's or bloc's own advantage.

If in the face of this danger the nations and their states, the politicians, but also the custodians and preservers of religions cannot learn to respect reciprocally each others religious, cultural and civil inheritance, if people cannot learn to maintain the two categorical imperatives of freedom and to maintain a balanced sense of responsibility with one another, then peace between them is indeed threatened. The world's political structure, as well as the socio-economic well-being of the world's peoples could be radically destroyed.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

It is for this reason that at the end of the old century - fifty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - it is high time we talked about human responsibilities. A set of minimum global and universally recognized ethical standards is becoming desperately necessary for intercontinental relationships - not only for individual behavior, but equally for political authorities, for religious communities and churches, and for nations; not only for governments, but also for international producers, traders and financial concerns. International corporations are today running the danger of abandoning themselves to an unrestrained predatory-like form of capitalism. The essential need for a sense of responsibility applies equally to the internationally active electronic media, who are running the danger of poisoning people with their excessive coverage of murders, shootings, violence and abuse of all description.

The absolutely essential need to avoid a clash of civilizations led to a large number of old statesmen (former state presidents and heads of government) from across all five continents proposing a blueprint for a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities. This proposal represents many years of work by spiritual, philosophical and political leaders from across the world and from all main religions. The initial task is to provoke a discussion: It is hoped that at the end of the process a similar declaration will be achieved by the UN as back in 1948, as the UN, following an initiative by Eleanor Roosevelt, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Just like the human rights declaration, the additional declaration of human responsibilities was to have an ethical appeal, rather than to be bound by international law. That being said, regional human rights packages have arisen from the moral ground provided by the human rights declaration, which are binding in international law such as the European Human Rights Convention and the creation of a European Court of Human Rights. We can also reflect upon the large implications of the Helsinki Final Declaration and its "Korb III" on the internal development of European communism. It is hoped that the Declaration of Human Responsibilities will instigate legislative and political implications at a later date.

On the other hand, those who would like to regard the authors and signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities as nothing other than idealists without a grasp on reality, have neither an adequate historical perspective on the actual implications of what at present is merely a non-binding human rights declaration nor an adequate understanding of the dangers faced by humanity in the future; They themselves could only be conservative supporters of real politics, a morally bankrupt and mistaken form of politics.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Our proposal repeats the "golden rule" in article 4, which plays an important role in all the world's religions (and was raised by Immanuel Kant to "categorical imperative"): "What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others". Article 9 states: "All people, have a responsibility... 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 15 says: The representatives of religions have a special responsibility to avoid expressions of prejudice and acts of discrimination toward those of different beliefs, and should rather foster tolerance and mutual respect between all people. And finally article 19 states: 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.

(...) Discussions about our proposal for a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities in the west will bring at least two main objections to the forefront. Followers of so-called real politics will say that the proposal is nothing other than idealism that neither has any prospect of being accepted by all sides nor any chance of being observed. Committed advocates of human rights, on the other hand, will say that if the proposal for a declaration of human responsibilities becomes seen as a 'twin' or 'pendant' of the human rights declaration, there is a danger of human rights being moved onto the level of simple morality. In Asia, some will say that while the proposal is in line with the main principals of Asian cultural traditions and therefore is welcomed; its following on from the human rights declaration is superfluous, detrimental and therefore to be rejected.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Mahatma Gandhi listed seven "social sins", at the top of this list were "politics without principles" and "commerce without morality". In a discussion about the proposal for a declaration of human responsibilities, the Financial Times recently wrote: "Correct: we need universal rules for good business practices...a Universal Declaration of Business Responsibilities would be generally beneficial if it could sink sufficiently into the depths of boardroom minds." Indeed, an initiative such as this could also prove to be fruitful, should the proposal for a declaration of human responsibilities actually create a worldwide discussion. Whatever, the proposal will be put before the UN for discussion and as a result will also be available for discussion among governments.

Moreover, a public discussion will force us to return to the basic understanding: If we citizens have rights to protect us against the will of others, then we also have duties and responsibilities for our fellow human beings. No democracy and no open society can survive without following the twin principal of rights and responsibilities.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

All nations, states and governments involved in the current globalization of the world economy have to reach a common minimum ethical code. Failure to do so could render the new century just as conflict-ridden as the one that is coming to an end. If conflicts in the old century were restricted to within certain parts of continents, the picture in the new could be very different with a real danger of conflict breaking out between different basic beliefs, with main groupings drawing on religious and cultural traditions in supporting their positions. Those wanting to avoid the threatened clash of cultures do not need to concentrate alone on economic and military potential, but rather need a set of morals, which are also recognized by the other parties.

[Documents relevant to this text: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities; other information is available on this subject in the advanced subjects of world ethic and human dignity]

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

[Die Zeit dated 17.10.1997]

Who could dispute that every individual has a responsibility to act with "integrity, honesty and fairness, to promote good and to avoid evil", that each individual has a responsibility to "respect life" and "to treat all humans with humanity?" The core statements in the proposed "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities", published in the ZEIT on October 3rd (no. 41/97), seem so innocent and natural that one hardly trusts oneself to find fault with the good intentions of this document.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

However good intentions can sometimes be the opposite of good. Even ethically motivated intentions can produce terrible results - such as the declaration of responsibilities, recently placed before the world for discussion by a group of former rulers that includes the former German Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. Criticism is not aimed at the values, on which this code of responsibilities is based. Nevertheless, this document throws up three fundamental objections:

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

According to a common diagnosis, the very thing that holds together western society is disintegrating. It would seem that everything is under threat - the social environment, village life, social commitment, honorary posts, the contract between the generations, working life - employer's associations are losing members, so too the unions, political parties and the church.

The blame for this dissolution of traditional bonds - so the theory goes - is individualism, the increasing freedom of the individual at the expense of society. This theory was put in a nutshell by American communitarians. Their manifesto from 1994 declares that western society "is increasingly threatened by the loss of moral standards, has a tendency towards selfishness and is driven by greedy, egoistic interests and an unbroken struggle for power". Helmut Schmidt clearly refers to the communitarians when he writes in his ZEIT article on the declaration of human responsibilities that: "Thoughtless, egoistic self-realization seems to have become the ideal, with public interest rendered as nothing more than a catchphrase. A "permissive upbringing" is skewed "too far in favor of basic rights".

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

So it would seem that we are faced by an incredible phenomenon: Society is no longer being threatened by a lack of freedom, as seen throughout history, but rather by an excess. A black picture of society such as this is absolutely necessary, if the aim is to promote successfully the strengthening of universal responsibilities to complement individual freedoms and with it to limit their consequences.

But the secular source of meaning for the modern world, political freedom, "does not dwindle through active use, rather flows with increasing power, replies the sociologist, Ulrich Beck, a tireless fighter against the Sodom and Gomorra view of the world. Some of the accusations made of the modern world are based simply upon a misunderstanding. If managers of corporations don't create enough jobs, as Helmut Schmidt complains, the main cause for this is not to be found in an predator-like form of capitalism. It is to be found in inflated labor costs. If tax yields are sinking, it is not taxpayer's honesty and morality that are at fault, but the loopholes offered by the law.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Indeed, there is no reason to describe the changes in western society purely in a negative way. Under closer examination, it turns out that the drop in standards is actually a change in standards. The German government itself commissioned an investigation into the values of young people and in doing so discovered a generation that, rather than being excessively focused on material gain, was actually quite altruistic. At the end of the investigations, the man in charge, Gerhard Schmidtchen was impressed by "the sincerity of the ambition to achieve personal honesty". Through surveys in Anglo-American countries, the London-based social researcher, Helen Wilkinson, discovered a generation that "has taken on both the benefits and the cost of increased freedoms". It is not the case that we are witnessing a "break with morality or resistance to morality". This is, however, the case for the way in which morality is traditionally expressed.

According to research results, people no longer want to submit to becoming soldiers in some sort of army for the public interest. Most are not interested in joining the Red Cross or SPD, too. They want to remain the subject of their actions. Their charitable and political commitment should be allowed to be spontaneous and free of hierarchies and formalisms.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

There is nothing to indicate a loss of virtues like the readiness to help and solidarity. During the recent flood crisis on the river "Oder", the German public gave more money than the flood victims in Brandenburg actually needed. The death of Princess Diana prompted the workforce of a factory in Hamburg to work voluntarily over the weekend to press quickly the commemorative CD by Elton John - proceeds were to be passed on to charitable organizations. Admittedly, commitment of this nature is rather flash-in-the-pan and fanned by a huge media. But what's so bad about that? Instead of complaining about a fall in standards, more thought should be channeled into finding out how the new forms of expressing a spirit of public interest can be made to bear fruit for society.

(...) Indeed, modern individualism is creating its community values itself. Even if individuals' ambitions are spread in a range of different directions, they are mostly at one with regard to what they don't want. The sociologist Karl Otto Hondrich calls this a "negative list of common values". At the end of the day, "individual self-esteem became a 'feeling of togetherness' stretching out far beyond the four walls of the living room". "One might say that the processes of disintegration is balanced by an unexpected process of stabilization".

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

The theory about a drop in standards is a restless spirit. It reappears every time societies begin to modernize at pace. Complaints about dropping standards were well known in England during the industrial revolution, as they were in Germany. In the age of globalization, a group of former heads of state have decided to present a list of responsibilities out of fear of the younger generation. They are applying the emergency brake where no emergency exists: Alarmism.

Helmut Schmidt believes that, " a set of minimum global and universally recognized ethical standards" is becoming desperately necessary for "intercontinental relationships" Especially in Asia there are apparently "serious and important accusations that the concept of basic rights ignores or even fails to appreciate the necessity of an individual's virtues and responsibilities. The list of responsibilities aims to take into account this criticism in order to avoid a "clash of cultures".

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

But which Asia exactly does Schmidt want to allow for? It's safe to assume that as a critic of "a permissive upbringing" he is not pleading for the kind of sexual permissiveness commonplace in some Asian countries. As a critic of murder and violence on TV screens, he is certainly not seeking to promote violent Asian films. And as a critic of a "speculative, predator-like form of capitalism" he is certainly not seeking to subscribe to the way of thinking characterized by those family clans from the tiger economies, who have transformed profit into a replacement religion.

Societies are complex. Everyone finds what they are looking for in them. Max Weber believed that values are capable of obstructing or accelerating economic development. Confucianism is partly responsible for the stagnation seen in Asia. Curiously enough, however, it seems that today the opposite is true. Confucianism's communal values are now being seen as the driving force of success. Yet, not only one cultural tradition exists in Asian, but many; And not all of Asia's tiger economies have Confucianist roots. Some of them have individualistic (Christian or Buddhist) traditions. In point of fact, Confucianism is not even as community orientated as many would have us believe. It also includes the idea about the dignity of the individual. Confucianism is - writes sinologist Heiner Roetz - closer to human rights thinking than the regimes which constantly disregard basic freedoms while citing Confucianism.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

To this end, the argument about "Asian values" proves to be an interest-led creation. Theorists of Asian values try to melt down in argument the continent's cultural differences. And they are only able to pull this off as long as they are in possession of a monopoly of interpretation over tradition with help from the police. Because in actual fact this is what it is all about: about the legitimatization of a directive style of leadership. Singapore's leader, Lee Kuan Yew was particularly successful in using "culture" as a weapon to defend the country against democracy and individualism. For years, he used an all-encompassing cultural tradition to excuse his form of cane-liberalism. Yet he represented a multi-cultural society. Lee Kuan Yew is now one of the signatories of the list of responsibilities.

Hiding behind "Asian values" is, in truth, an "authoritarian temptation" (Ralf Dahrendorf). And it is for this reason that the path towards avoiding a "clash of cultures" through relativism is misleading. The best guarantee for peace among the world's peoples remains respecting universal human rights.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

And if doomsday scenarios fail to provide conclusive evidence that a list of responsibilities is needed, there is always the argument that such a list would be good for the west - fundamentally. After all, democracies are dependent on their citizens' commitment and sense of responsibility. Therefore the state and democrats have to promote public spirit - in the classroom, in the political arena and in journalism. Helmut Schmidt, legitimized through his life's work, is a credible mentor of this idea.

Yet the authors of the declaration of responsibilities have not left it as an ethical appeal. The list of responsibilities has been worded in legalistic paragraphs. Helmut Schmidt is clearly hoping for a normative consolidation, such as the one that came about from the 1948 human rights declaration. He sees the European Court of Human Rights as an example for "later legal and political implications of the declaration of responsibilities". Should it come to this, however, public virtue would be enforceable and the door to abuse opened wide - if unintentionally.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

In a famous essay the English idea historian, Isaiah Berlin, described the conflict between the two terms used for freedom. According to the "negative theory" freedom is simply the absence of force, while the "positive theory" seeks to tie freedom to tasks that will serve society. The teachings of Rousseau and Marx fall into this category. The Canadian communitarian, Charles Taylor, has recently also been advocating the "positive doctrine". He understands freedom as meaning "realization". It would seem that the authors of the declaration of responsibilities are now also declaring themselves as followers of this school of thought with their idea about standardized responsibilities.

Isaiah Berlin demonstrated that freedom is nothing other than freedom itself. It always has the "negative" aim  of fending off intervention; freedom is always freedom from something - and thus a protective wall against oppressors. "The freedom that I am talking about", said Berlin, "is the opportunity to act, but not action itself". It includes the freedom of stupidity, of irrationality and of error and even the freedom to show disinterest in common values. If freedom, on the other hand, is tied to serving the public good, it can quickly turn into bondage, "while still continuing to live off the beneficial associations that are tied to its innocent beginnings" (Berlin). So it was during the revolutionary reign of terror in France and in the communist east. Even if a democratic state (instead of society) is set on realizing the ethical, this remains "paternalistic arrogance" - as stated by the essayist Richard Herzinger.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

It is absolutely false to suggest that the citizen wanders around irresponsibly in a sort of value vacuum, should a list of responsibilities not be at hand. Citizens are bound by human rights. Just as the proposed list of responsibilities, human rights are also based on the "golden rule: "What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not..." Because freedom of the wolf means death of the lamb, it is essential that rights and laws prevent conflicts of interest. In this way, the freedom of the individual is limited by the rights of everyone else. And so it is that responsibilities develop out of rights: Freedom of speech leads to a responsibility not to insult others; With the right to parenthood comes the responsibility to bring up the child; and freedom of action finds its limits in the social responsibility to help others in times of need.

(...) That there is no symmetry between rights and responsibility comes as a result of constitutional carelessness on behalf of the free state. Richard Herzinger is right when he writes: "Those wanting to immunize freedoms against risk by placing them under guardianship suggest nothing other than suicide for fear of death". Indeed, the authors of this list of responsibilities appear to have been aware of this danger. Since they write in article 19 that their declaration should not be interpreted as an attempt at "destruction" of freedoms. One redeeming clause, however, will not lead to the disappearance of a fundamental conflict. A better strategy would have been to abandon the project.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

[Die Zeit dated 24.10.1997]

The word responsibility must possess some sort of integral excitement mechanism. Clearly progressive "children of freedom" (Ulrich Beck) see in it uncomfortable associations with "secondary virtues" such as punctuality and order, hard work, discipline and the banning of chewing gum; indeed the entire arsenal of the petty bourgeois. Then, surely, there can be no other explanation for the fierce reaction that has greeted the "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities"

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Constanze Stelzenmüller is worried that the list of responsibilities could become a source of ideas for all "authoritarian regimes that want to put human rights into perspective" (no. 42). And Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff even thinks that the manifesto should never have been written - "even something as simple as intentions", he writes, "can bring forth terrible consequences" (no. 43). Apparently, these include an "alarmist analysis of society".

Do these voices represent the winners of individualization - the ego police? Do those not wholeheartedly sharing their somewhat merciless form of optimism have to fear being condemned as reactionaries? Individualism's drawbacks can only be overlooked with a certain amount of determination: It is fair to assume that the young and strong are not as likely to be as concerned about the neglect of public spaces as the old and weak; those without children need not spend too much time worrying about youth violence and increasing drug consumption; and those who regard Techno as a political movement need not think about democracy at all.

[Back to top]    [Back to overview]

Everyone else, however, may well feel a little frightened about all the changes that have taken place in society over the past thirty years, and may well be asking themselves whether they actually want to live like this. In this regard, the list of responsibilities provides a valuable service: It forces a discussion on the question as to whether in the current situation an even greater degree of individual freedom is appropriate for improving our life together. Evidence points against this. In the modern, irreversible global community, people are more dependent on each other than ever before. In order for this situation to remain bearable, people must be increasingly considerate of each other's needs. That achievement in this area is limited, as written by the sociologist, Norbert Elias, is a result of a long distancing process - the individual finds space to both him/herself and society. From the point of view of an adequate level of civilization, the individual now regards as a self-constraint that which once had to be imposed and implemented upon him with a great deal of effort by a third party - such as to abandon the law of the strongest. Going even as far as certain changing forms of politeness, this self-constraint includes all the restraints that make living together at all possible. Unfortunately, however, civilization at a certain level is not like an investment account; our century provides examples aplenty of relapses into savagery. It is by no means alarmist when educational theory, journalism and politics takes critical stock of the situation: For three decades these same bodies have concentrated mainly on increasing and implementing individual rights. Whether continuation of this trend at a time of crisis would prove helpful in ensuring a self-determined life, full of purpose and free of conflict is questionable

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Where there is plenty of space, lots of money and an abundance of opportunity, it may well be the case that respect of other people's rights and preventing murder is all that is needed to secure a working sense of community. In a situation such as this, a night watchman state, which guarantees freedom for its citizens, depending on whether they can travel to the Bahamas or not; and “includes the freedom of stupidity, of irrationality and of error and even the freedom to show disinterest in common values” as contained within Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff’s preferred definition of freedom, is no bad thing.

But in times of shortage – whether it be jobs, natural resources or universally accepted morality – things look rather different: Can the state not expect anything more of individuals than non-infringement of the law? The responsibilities presented by the former heads of state do at least go beyond this: They demand an effort of the people, whether it is practical solidarity, honesty or self-enhancement.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Having said this, an annoying aspect to the whole enterprise cannot be denied: Responsibilities have always had something to do with giving up certain individual urges, with putting off one's own needs and with a restriction of personal liberties - Those getting out of bed at four in the morning to feed a crying baby and those staying at home to care for their ninety-year-old mother are very aware that such duties have very little to do with realizing their own personality. It is, however, necessary.

Of course it would be preferable were citizens voluntarily to take on meaningful, community-orientated responsibilities out of an understanding for their necessity. Circumstances, regrettably, are not like this. This is partly to do with the material hardship of some, partly with adverse circumstances; but it also has its roots in an upbringing fixated on setting an individual “dysfunctional to society’s system” (Herbert Marcuse), and on an upbringing, which in its most vulgar form, sank so low as to become a helpless “do as you want”. Whether or not this from of non-intervention is the key to happiness, faced with broken marriages and an ever more hectic search for the meaning of life in the esoteric supermarket, is questionable. That it endangers a sense of community can certainly not be ruled out. Should, for instance, citizens continue to turn their backs on democratic institutions out of boredom or disinterest until institutions lose their legitimacy through of lack of mandate? There is much to be said for a certain amount of argumentative pressure being brought to bear on individuals to at least have an interest in political affairs.

For me, the reasons behind the manifesto for responsibility couldn't be more clear: It opens the door to a - democratic - self-understanding about what is right and what is wrong, about what is allowed and what is not, and even about what is good and what is evil. The manifesto hands back to individuals the responsibility of actually having an interest in these key issues. Therefore it is not paternalistic but - what else? - political.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

[Die Zeit dated 07.11.1997]

With all due respect to the efforts made towards international recognition of certain ethical principles with regard to life between the peoples and humans - such as the ones that have found expression in articles by Hans Küng on the issue of "global ethic" for example - the difference between human rights and human responsibilities has to be pointed out. I also feel it necessary to voice some criticism on the article by Helmut Schmidt ("Zeit, von den Pflichten zu sprechen" in der ZEIT Nr.41/97).

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Human rights declarations are hundreds of years older than the current blueprint drawn up for a declaration on human responsibilities by Helmut Schmidt and other personalities. It is untrue to suggest, as Helmut Schmidt clearly does in his opening sentence, that a human rights declaration came about following the dictatorships of this century. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights passed by English parliament in 1689 and the declaration of droits de l'homme et du citoyen in the French National Assembly could equally be used as examples.

I find it astonishing that the article mentions nothing about the human responsibilities contained in the international agreement on civil and political rights signed by the United Nations on 19 December 1966 or the international agreement on economic, social and cultural rights from the same day. Both of these agreements, quite rightly, are regarded as necessary supplements to the individual human rights.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Human rights declarations and declarations on human responsibilities are quite different in character: One is almost talking here about a "qualitative leap".  Human rights declarations, it's true, don't carry the same weight as basic laws. They are, however, legally binding in so far as they allow individuals, groups and civil institutions to cite human rights while enforcing their rights - especially against the state. The situation is quite different for human responsibilities. Human responsibilities have the character of a moral call, an ethical appeal. This does not change their moral meaning. A colleague of mine put it like this: "The Declaration of Human Responsibilities represents a sermon". Well, I love giving lectures  - but its important to remember the difference and not to give the impression that the declaration of "human rights" and the declaration of "human responsibilities" are identical in their effect.             

Indeed, it is also not the case that the classical human rights declarations do not mention responsibilities. This can be seen in article 29 of the 1948 human rights declaration, which is overwritten with "basic responsibilities". The first paragraph states: "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible". The basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany (1949) mentions in section "I. basic laws" (1-19) duties and responsibilities seven times.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Historically, citizens contested their rights against feudal lords, the church, political and economic aristocrats and were at least partly successful in achieving a situation in which human rights (or basic rights, or freedoms) were embodied in writing. In the face of this insurrection and the allowances achieved, the reaction of the establishment was often one of reminding its former subjects of their responsibilities to the powers that be. This historical background should not be forgotten.

Along with

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

If I may, I would like to refer to a declaration by sixteen east Asian non-governmental organizations in April 1996. It states: "Asian governments use cultural, historical and fixed aspects to trample on the inalienable rights of Asians" (Frankfurter Rundschau dated 3 April 1996).

Summing up, I would like to emphasize that I find the efforts for a Declaration of Human Responsibilities important and give them my support. But I do feel that a clear conceptual difference should be established between human rights and human responsibilities

[Documents mentioned  — Bill of Rights, Declaration des droits des hommes, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found on our Document pages]

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

[Back to top of page]    [Human Rights start page]    [Illustrated overview]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods