speech on world human rights

• Infographics
• Inspired Source
• Visions of Human Rights
• Our Spotlights
• British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) Guest Blog
• Our funders
• How to pitch to us
• Contact EachOther
• Support Everyone, Support EachOther

What we write about

• Discrimination
• Environment
• Immigration
• Institutions
• Young People
• Black Lives Matter
• Fighting Hate with Rights
• Hostile Environment
• Reforming the Gender Recognition Act
• School Exclusions
• Sex Workers Rights
• The History Of Rights – HIV And AIDs In The UK
• Uncovering Period Poverty
• Why the Human Rights Act is crucial for the UK
• Young People and Mental Health

More than news

• EachOther's Comics
• EachOther's Videos

Explore EachOther

• About EachOther
• Commission EachOther
• Pitch to EachOther
• Our social media house rules

• Corrections & Complaints
• Privacy Policy
• Using Our Content

6 Human Rights Speeches That Changed The World

Words are powerful things. Put in the hands of skilful orators they have the ability to inspire, heal and rally vast swathes of people. And what could be more worth rallying for than the inherent dignity and equal rights of ‘ all members of the human family’ (AKA, our human rights) ? 

These six speakers advocate for equality, freedom, and dignity. But above all, what connects them is their belief in the power of free speech, and that their own voice can make a difference – and they did.

• Hundreds of inspirational human rights quotes

1. Eleanor Roosevelt, The Struggle for Human Rights, 1948

Let’s start off with the first lady of human rights – Eleanor Roosevelt with her famous 1948 speech ‘The Struggle for Human Rights’

We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

Check her out in action here:

2. Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream, 1963

Moving on to one of the most recognisable speeches of the 20 th Century – Martin Luther King Jnr in 1963 ‘I Have A Dream.’

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

His delivery brings his words off the page:

3. Emmeline Pankhurst, Freedom or Death, 1913

Great speeches have a habit of connecting to times of strife. The struggle for women’s suffrage is littered with powerful speeches denouncing inequality – here is one of the most famous from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, ‘Freedom or Death,’

Human life for us is sacred, but we say if any life is to be sacrificed it shall be ours; we won’t do it ourselves, but we will put the enemy in the position where they will have to choose between giving us freedom or giving us death.

If you want to listen to it, check out this reading of it:

4. Harold Macmillan, The Wind of Change, 1960

Sometimes the location of a speech underlines its impact. Here Harold Macmillan is addressing the South African Parliament about racial discrimination and slavery in his 1960 ‘The Wind of Change’ speech.

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.

Check out Harold in full flow here:

5. Nelson Mandela, I Am Prepared To Die, 1964

Four years later in 1964 in the same country, Nelson Mandela was on trial on charges of sabotage and made the following speech from the dock:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Here is Mr Mandela using the court room as his megaphone:

6. Elie Wiesel, The Perils of Indifference

We’ll end with a personal favourite. Here is Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor addressing President Clinton in 1999 talking about ‘The Perils of Indifference.’

Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.

Watch the full 20 minutes here:

These are just a small selection of powerful speeches, which speeches would you put in your top ten?

• Check out our guest post on ‘Free Speech and Why it Matters’ 
• For more on freedom of expression and why it matters, read our Explainer here. 
• To read about why we should continue to fight for our freedoms, read RightsInfo’s director’s opinion post, ‘ Evil Progresses Cunningly ‘. 

Harold Macmillan image ©  Chetham’s Library , and Wikimedia used under Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic Licence.

About the author.

Anna Dannreuther is a barrister at Field Court Chambers practising in public, employment, and commercial law. She is a trans ally and has worked extensively on human rights issues, including at the European Court of Human Rights and with NGO partners.

Latest News

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Eleanor Roosevelt Pushed for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By: Becky Little

Updated: July 13, 2023 | Original: December 8, 2020

“The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world,” Eleanor Roosevelt told a crowd in September 1948 at the Sorbonne in Paris. “People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves… People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.”

Roosevelt was there to speak about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , a document whose drafting she’d overseen at the newly-formed United Nations . The U.N. adopted the document that year on December 10, a date now commemorated as Human Rights Day.

The rights enumerated in the declaration were controversial among the U.N.’s member nations, and remain so today. It proclaimed, among other rights, that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” The former First Lady fought hard to make the declaration comprehensive and later wrote that she considered it “my most important task” during her years at the U.N.

Preventing War by Supporting Human Rights

The 51 countries that founded the U.N. did so in October 1945, just a couple of months after the end of World War II . In the wake of two world wars and the first nuclear bomb attacks , and in the midst of a global refugee crisis, many feared that a more destructive World War III was right around the corner. The U.N. was founded at a time when people like Eleanor Roosevelt wanted to avoid such a disaster and address human rights as a way of preventing war.

President Harry Truman appointed Roosevelt to the U.S. delegation to the U.N. at the end of 1945. By then, she was well-known in the U.S. and abroad. As First Lady during Franklin D. Roosevelt ’s administration from 1933 to 1945, she championed poverty alleviation, access to education and civil rights, and traveled to the European and Pacific front lines of World War II. In April 1946, she became chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and took on the task of drafting a human rights declaration for the world.

Why FDR Didn’t Support Eleanor Roosevelt’s Anti‑Lynching Campaign

President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared losing Southern support for his New Deal legislation.

FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt’s Children: Who Were They?

Franklin Roosevelt’s children offered physical, emotional and political support throughout his presidency.

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Work to Oppose Japanese Internment 

The first lady did what she could to support Japanese Americans during WWII—without appearing to defy FDR's Executive Order 9066.

Roosevelt’s ideas about human rights and the need to work toward global peace were heavily influenced by her experiences during the two world wars. On the home front, she served food to World War I soldiers and “took the lead in making the federal government address shell-shocked sailors who were trapped in straight jackets in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in D.C.,” says Allida Black, a scholar at UVA’s Miller Center for Public Affairs and editor emeritus of GWU’s Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project .

She saw firsthand the death and devastation in Europe caused by the First and Second World Wars and continued to witness it during her U.N. appointment. In a column published in February 1946, she wrote about her visit to the Zeilsheim displaced persons camp in Germany. After meeting Jewish people who had survived the Holocaust , she reflected : “When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?”

Crafting a Declaration for All People

Creating the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was no easy task, given that nations like the U.S. and the Soviet Union couldn’t agree on what human rights were. Working on it required winning over people who disliked and disagreed with her like Republican John Foster Dulles, a U.S. delegate to the U.N. General Assembly who had protested the Democratic First Lady’s appointment. Roosevelt appealed to his Catholicism to get his support for including economic and social rights—which many U.S. conservatives disparaged as “communist”—in the declaration. And it worked.

“So the most hawkish Republican teams up with Eleanor Roosevelt to go to Harry Truman and the secretary of State to say, ‘We must have economic and social rights in this document; people must have access to food, they must have access to shelter, they must have access to education,’” Black says. “Imagine that.”

Hansa Mehta, a U.N. delegate from the newly-independent country of India and the only other woman on the Commission on Human Rights, also played a significant role in shaping the declaration. She is the one who suggested changing the declaration’s original language in the first article from “All men are born free and equal” to “All human beings are born free and equal,” says Blanche Wiesen Cook , a professor of history and women’s studies at CUNY and author of a three - volume biography of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Even though the declaration wasn’t a binding, enforceable treaty, it served as a model for legislation in many countries. After its adoption, Roosevelt continued to promote and speak about the declaration and the importance of human rights.

“She was very proud of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and she thought that it would be quickly followed by binding covenants,” Cook says. “But she died in 1962 and the covenants weren’t even ready then, and the U.S. didn’t sign the civil and political rights covenant until George Herbert Walker Bush ratified it when the Soviet Union collapsed .”

The United States has not yet ratified the treaty’s economic and social rights covenant .

HISTORY Vault: World War II

Stream World War II series and specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Search the United Nations

26 february 2024, secretary-general's remarks to the human rights council, antónio guterres.

Our world is changing at warp speed. The multiplication of conflicts is causing unprecedented suffering. But human rights are a constant. They bring coherence to our search for solutions. And they are fundamental to our hopes for a world at peace … Protecting human rights protects us all.

[Bilingual as delivered; scroll down for all-English]

Mr President of the General Assembly, Mr President of the Human Rights Council, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.

Human rights are the bedrock of peace.

Today, both are under attack.

We meet at a time of turbulence for our world, for people, and for human rights.

First and foremost, conflicts are taking a terrible toll as parties to war trample on human rights and humanitarian law.

At the local level and online, many communities are riven with violent rhetoric, discrimination and hate speech.

Add to that an information war. A war on the poor. And a war on nature.

All these battles have one thing in common: they are a war on fundamental human rights.

And in every case, the path to peace begins with full respect for all human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social, and without double standards.

Because building a culture of human rights is building a world at peace. I commend the critical contributions of the Human Rights Council towards this goal, through its mandates and mechanisms, and its response to evolving situations.

Excellencies,

Our world is becoming less safe by the day.

After decades of stable power relations, we are transitioning into an era of multipolarity.

This creates new opportunities for leadership and justice on the international stage.

But multipolarity without strong multilateral institutions is a recipe for chaos.

As powers compete, tensions rise.

The rule of law, and the rules of war, are being undermined.

From Ukraine to Sudan to Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gaza, parties to conflict are turning a blind eye to international law, the Geneva Conventions and even the United Nations Charter.

The Security Council is often deadlocked, unable to act on the most significant peace and security issues of our time.

The Council’s lack of unity on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and on Israel’s military operations in Gaza following the horrific terror attacks by Hamas on 7 October, has severely – perhaps fatally – undermined its authority.

The Council needs serious reform to its composition and working methods.

Nothing can justify [Hamas’s] deliberate killing, injuring, torturing and kidnapping of civilians, the use of sexual violence – or the indiscriminate launching of rockets towards Israel.

But nothing justifies the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

I invoked Article 99 for the first time in my mandate, to put the greatest possible pressure on the Council to do everything in its power to end the bloodshed in Gaza and prevent escalation. But it was not enough.

International Humanitarian Law remains under attack.

Tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children, have been killed in Gaza.

Humanitarian aid is still completely insufficient.

Rafah is the core of the humanitarian aid operation, and UNRWA is the backbone of that effort.

An all-out Israeli offensive on the city would not only be terrifying for more than a million Palestinian civilians sheltering there; it would put the final nail in the coffin of our aid programmes.

I repeat my call for a humanitarian ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.

Around the world, violence is increasing, and conflict-related human rights violations are spreading.

International human rights and humanitarian law are clear:

All parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants at all times.

Attacks on civilians or protected infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, are prohibited.

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.

Attacks where the likelihood of civilian death is disproportionate to the probable military advantage are prohibited.

The taking and holding of hostages is prohibited.

The use of civilians as human shields is prohibited.

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The use of sexual violence as a weapon of war is prohibited.

And violations by one party do not absolve the other from compliance.

We cannot – we must not – become numb to appalling and repeated violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

All allegations of serious violations and abuses demand urgent investigation and accountability.

And we are determined to take such action in relation to allegations against our own staff.

The Geneva Conventions, which require the protection of civilians and the humane treatment of people in enemy hands, were not the result of an outbreak of global goodwill.

These treaties were agreed because they protect everyone.

Around the world, warring parties claim exemptions, asserting that certain people or situations are uniquely dangerous.

But flouting international law only feeds insecurity and results in more bloodshed.

Human rights conventions and humanitarian law are based on cold, hard reality:

They recognize that terrorizing civilians and depriving them of food, water, and healthcare is a recipe for endless anger, alienation, extremism and conflict.

Today’s warmongers cannot erase the clear lesson of the past.

Protecting human rights protects us all.

We urgently need a new commitment to all human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social – as they apply to peace and security, backed by serious efforts at implementation and accountability.

States have the primary responsibility to protect and promote human rights.

To support states in meeting their obligations, I am launching a system-wide United Nations Agenda for Protection, together with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Under this Agenda, the United Nations, across the full spectrum of our work, will act as one to prevent human rights violations, and to identify and respond to them when they take place.

That is the Protection Pledge of all United Nations bodies: to do their utmost to protect people.

Around the world, governments must step up and commit to working for peace and security rooted in human rights.

The Summit of the Future in September is our opportunity for such a re-commitment.

The New Agenda for Peace, to be discussed at the Summit, applies a human rights lens to preventing and ending violence in all its forms.

Building on our Call to Action for Human Rights, it urges an end to reflexive responses to violence, underscoring the need for strategic, comprehensive approaches that address root causes.

Successful peace processes, from Colombia to Northern Ireland, demonstrate that the full spectrum of human rights is indispensable to building peace.

The New Agenda for Peace recognizes that security policies that ignore human rights can divide communities, exacerbate inequalities, and drive people towards extremism.

It calls for all military engagement to respect human rights and humanitarian law, and to be backed by political and development strategies.

It urges security policies centred on people, with the full and equal participation of women, and the strong representation of young people.

It calls for human rights to be at the heart of the governance of new weapons technologies, including artificial intelligence, and seeks the total prohibition of lethal autonomous weapons with the power to kill without human involvement.

It affirms that human rights and humanitarian law apply in cyberspace.

And it calls for much closer collaboration between the UN’s human rights frameworks, the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission – to address violations, and put human rights at the core of peace operations.

The New Agenda for Peace also addresses the links between human rights violations and violence at the community level.

From the epidemic of violence against women and girls, to the activities of criminal gangs, to rising antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, the persecution of minority Christian communities, and discrimination against minorities of all kinds, many people do not feel safe in their own communities.

Media workers and human rights defenders are frequently targeted—sometimes as part of a strategy to reduce civic space and silence criticism.

Decades of progress on women’s and girls’ rights are being challenged and rolled back – including their fundamental right to education and healthcare, and their sexual and reproductive rights.

The New Agenda for Peace urges governments to create space in national security policies for civil society, human rights defenders, and those representing vulnerable and marginalized people. Freedom of the media, freedom of expression and an open, inclusive civic space are essential to peaceful, democratic societies.

It calls for the dismantling and transformation of power structures that discriminate against women and girls; and for concrete steps to secure women’s full, equal and meaningful participation at all levels of decision-making on peace and security.

And it presses for young people to be included as participants in decision-making on peace and security events.

We are also setting out ways to tackle online abuses of human rights and support people’s rights to connectivity and privacy online, through our forthcoming code of conduct for information integrity, and a Global Digital Compact.

Peaceful communities require an open, secure, accessible digital public space that supports human rights and freedoms.

Excellences,

Les guerres ne se limitent pas aux champs de bataille.

Certaines politiques économiques actuelles, à l’échelon national comme au niveau mondial, constituent une guerre contre les pauvres, et contre les droits humains.

De nombreuses économies en développement peinent encore à se relever du double choc de la pandémie de COVID-19 et de l’invasion russe de l’Ukraine. Les Objectifs de développement durable sont très loin d’être atteints.

Rien que cette année, les pays les plus pauvres du monde doivent verser plus de 185 milliards de dollars en service de la dette – soit plus que le total de leurs dépenses publiques en matière de santé, d’éducation et d’infrastructures.

L’absence de bouée de sauvetage face à la dette met en péril la capacité de millions de personnes à jouir de leurs droits – à l’eau potable, à une alimentation nutritive, à l’éducation, aux soins de santé et à l’emploi.

L’architecture financière mondiale est au cœur de cette crise des droits humains. Elle est obsolète, dysfonctionnelle et injuste, et doit être réformée afin de fournir des financements à long terme et à faible coût, et constituer un filet de sécurité efficace pour tous les pays qui en ont besoin.

Nous demandons l’adoption d’un Plan de relance des ODD – à la hauteur de 500 milliards de dollars par an – afin que les pays en développement puissent accéder à des financements abordables et à long terme.

Et nous appelons également de nos vœux à un nouveau Bretton Woods, afin de remodeler l’architecture financière mondiale pour qu’elle reflète le monde d’aujourd’hui – et non celui d’il y a 80 ans.

Le Sommet de l’avenir sera l’occasion d’envisager des réformes profondes visant à rendre les cadres de financement mondiaux plus inclusifs, équitables et justes, afin qu’ils puissent aider les gouvernements à donner la priorité aux dépenses sociales, au développement durable et à l’action climatique essentielle aux droits humains.

Le Sommet social mondial et la Conférence internationale sur le financement au développement qui se tiendront l’année prochaine mettront l’accent sur la manière dont les politiques économiques, y compris les budgets, les mesures fiscales et les subventions, peuvent renforcer les investissements dans les Objectifs de développement durable et les droits humains pour toutes et tous.

Excellences, chers amis,

Notre guerre contre la nature est une guerre contre les droits humains de personnes qui comptent parmi les plus vulnérables au monde : les peuples autochtones ; les communautés rurales ; les personnes marginalisées et les plus démunies.

Les crises qui frappent notre planète – le changement climatique, la perte de biodiversité et la pollution – portent toutes en elles la même injustice profonde : Ce sont les personnes qui ont le moins contribué à ces crises qui en paient le prix fort et subissent de plein fouet l’aggravation de la faim et de la famine, la dégradation des terres, les déplacements forcés, la contamination des sources d’eau ou les décès prématurés.

La reconnaissance du droit à un environnement propre, sain et durable par le Conseil des droits de l’homme en 2021 et par l’Assemblée générale en 2022 montre que les temps changent.

La justice environnementale et la justice climatique sont des cris de ralliement en faveur d’un traitement équitable et éthique du principe de responsabilité et des droits humains.

La justice climatique exige que les pays du G20 montrent la voie dans l’élimination progressive des combustibles fossiles.

Elle exige que toutes les contributions déterminées au niveau national ou plans climatiques nationaux soient alignés sur la limite maximale de 1,5 degré pour le réchauffement de la planète.

Elle exige un prix du carbone effectif et la fin des subventions accordées aux combustibles fossiles.

La justice climatique exige des pays développés qu’ils honorent leurs engagements financiers à l’égard des économies en développement, en commençant par celui de mobiliser les 100 milliards de dollars par an et de doubler le financement de l’adaptation d’ici à 2025.

Enfin, elle exige que le Fonds pour les pertes et dommages soit opérationnel le plus rapidement possible – et reçoive des contributions significatives.

Pour de nombreux pays du Sud, la justice économique, environnementale et climatique est le principal défi de notre époque en matière de droits humains.

L’Organisation des Nations Unies se joint à eux pour appeler à tous les pays pour qu’ils assument leurs responsabilités.

Notre monde change à une vitesse vertigineuse. La multiplication des conflits provoque des souffrances sans précédent. Mais les droits humains sont une constante. Ils donnent de la cohérence à notre quête de solutions. Ils sont fondamentaux pour nos espoirs d’un monde en paix.

Il y a quatre ans, l’Organisation des Nations Unies a célébré son soixante-quinzième anniversaire en lançant une enquête mondiale. Les citoyens du monde entier ont déclaré à une écrasante majorité qu’ils souhaitaient que les dirigeants mondiaux accordent la priorité aux droits humains et qu’ils les respectent.

Cet appel a été repris lors de la célébration du soixante-quinzième anniversaire de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme en décembre dernier.

Cette année, le Sommet de l’avenir nous donne l’occasion de répondre à cette demande. Et de faire en sorte que nos institutions mondiales soient en phase avec la réalité en constante évolution d’aujourd’hui.

Et de pleinement adhérer aux valeurs immuables des droits humains.

Ensemble, saisissons cette occasion pour faire avancer la paix et les droits humains – pour toutes et pour tous.

Et je vous remercie.

**************************************************************************

[All-English]

Because building a culture of human rights is building a world at peace.

I commend the critical contributions of the Human Rights Council towards this goal, through its mandates and mechanisms, and its response to evolving situations.

Attacks on civilians or protected infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, are prohibited. 

Forced displacement is prohibited.

War is not only waged on the battlefield.

Some of today’s economic policies, at both national and global levels, constitute a war on the poor – and on human rights.

Many developing economies are still struggling to recover from the double shock of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Sustainable Development Goals are very far off-track.

The world’s poorest countries are due to pay over $185 billion in debt services costs this year – more than their total public spending on health, education and infrastructure.

The absence of a debt lifeline jeopardises the ability of millions of people to realise their rights to clean drinking water, a nutritious diet, education, healthcare, and jobs.

The global financial architecture is at the heart of this human rights emergency.

It is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust, and it must be reformed to provide long-term, low-cost financing and an effective safety net for all countries in need.

We are pushing for an SDG Stimulus of $500 billion annually in affordable long-term finance for developing countries.

We are also calling for a new Bretton Woods moment, to reshape the global financial architecture in line with today’s reality – not the world of 80 years ago.

The Summit of the Future will consider deep reforms to make global financial frameworks more inclusive, equitable and just, so they can support governments in prioritizing social spending, sustainable development and climate action, essential to human rights.

Next year’s World Social Summit and International Conference on Financing for Development will focus on ways in which economic policies, including budgets, taxes and subsidies, can reinforce investments in the SDGs and human rights for all.

Excellencies, dear friends,

Our war on nature is a war on the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the world: Indigenous People; rural communities; the marginalized and dispossessed.

The crises assaulting our planet – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – all have a massive injustice at their core:

Those who did least to cause these crises are bearing the brunt of rising hunger and famine, land degradation, forced displacement, contaminated water sources and premature deaths.

The recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council in 2021 and by the General Assembly in 2022 shows that times are changing.

Environmental justice and climate justice are rallying cries for ethical, equitable treatment, accountability and human rights.

Climate justice demands that G20 countries lead the progressive phase-out of fossil fuels.

It demands that all Nationally Determined Contributions, or national climate plans, align with the 1.5-degree upper limit on global heating.

It demands an effective carbon price and an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

It demands the developed countries meet their finance commitments to developing economies – starting with the $100 billion and doubling adaptation funding by 2025.

And it demands that the Loss and Damage Fund is up and running as soon as possible, with significant contributions.

For many countries of the Global South, economic, environmental and climate justice are the defining human rights challenges of our time.

The United Nations stands with them in calling on all countries to assume their responsibilities.

Our world is changing at warp speed.

The multiplication of conflicts is causing unprecedented suffering.

But human rights are a constant.

They bring coherence to our search for solutions.

And they are fundamental to our hopes for a world at peace.

Four years ago, the United Nations marked its 75th anniversary with a global survey. Overwhelmingly, people everywhere said they want world leaders to prioritize and deliver human rights.

This call was echoed as we marked the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights last December.

This year’s Summit of the Future is our opportunity to answer that demand.

To align our global institutions with today’s ever-changing reality.

And to embrace the unchanging values of human rights.

Together, let’s seize this opportunity to advance peace and human rights for all.

• Switzerland
• Human Rights, democracy
• Daily Schedule
• Appointment Process
• Role of the Secretary-General
• Former Secretaries-General
• Official Travels
• Deputy Secretary-General
• Senior Management Group
• Global Leadership
• Messengers of Peace
• Annual Report on the Work of the Organization
• Coordinator for Multilingualism
• Public Disclosure
• Opinion pieces/Op-eds
• Secretariat
• Department of Global Communications
• Spokesperson's Office
• Scientific Advisory Board

• Teaching Resources
• Upcoming Events
• On-demand Events

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• Social Studies
• The Holocaust
• Human & Civil Rights
• facebook sharing
• email sharing

Get the Book

Learn more about the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with our resource book Fundamental Freedoms.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. It states the basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled.

The devastation of World War II sparked an international desire for peace. It also encouraged the creation of a system of principles that could ensure the protection of basic human rights and dignity. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was one of the first American delegates to the United Nations. A longtime activist on behalf of minorities, women, workers, and refugees, Roosevelt became the chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights. She worked with a small group of representatives from countries around the world to define the most essential universal rights and establish them in an official document. On December 10, 1948, she urged the United Nations General Assembly to approve the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

In giving our approval to the Declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations. We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries. At a time when there are so many issues on which we find it difficult to reach a common basis of agreement, it is a significant fact that 58 states have found such a large measure of agreement in the complex field of human rights. This must be taken as testimony of our common aspiration first voiced in the Charter of the United Nations to lift men everywhere to a higher standard of life and to a greater enjoyment of freedom. Man’s desire for peace lies behind this Declaration. The realization that the flagrant violation of human rights by Nazi and Fascist countries sowed the seeds of the last world war has supplied the impetus for the work which brings us to the moment of achievement here today. . . . This Declaration is based upon the spiritual fact that man must have freedom in which to develop his full stature and through common effort to raise the level of human dignity. We have much to do to fully achieve and to assure the rights set forth in this Declaration. But having them put before us with the moral backing of 58 nations will be a great step forward. 1

The United Nations approved the declaration, but the work of the commission was only partially done. The UDHR, in Roosevelt’s words, “would say to the peoples of the world ‘this is what we hope human rights may mean to all people in the years to come.’” The second part of the commission’s work was to be “a covenant which would be in the form of a treaty to be presented to the nations of the world.” Every nation that ratified the treaty “would then be obligated to change its laws wherever they did not conform to the points contained in the covenant.” 2 The commission thought a treaty might be worked out within the next few years, but this hope proved to be too optimistic. The work to secure human rights around the world remains an ongoing struggle.

• 1 From Eleanor Roosevelt, “On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” in Great Speeches by American Women , ed. James Daley (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2008), 128–29.
• 2 From Eleanor Roosevelt, “ The Struggle for Human Rights ,” speech delivered September 28, 1948, in Paris, France, available from American Rhetoric, accessed June 26, 2016.

UDHR Infographic

Connection questions.

• How does the UDHR differ from an international agreement or a “statement of law”?
• In what ways was the UDHR a response to the past? In what ways did it present a responsibility for future generations?
• Are there individual human rights that take precedence over the policies or declarations of any nation? Are there communal needs that might take precedence over the rights of an individual?
• What needs to happen for the ideals expressed in the UDHR to become a reality?
• The idea that there is a set of “universal” rights for people everywhere in the world remains controversial. Look up the full text of the UDHR online. Do the rights enumerated in the UDHR seem to fit all of the diverse cultures and belief systems across the globe? What rights do you think should be enjoyed universally by all people?

How to Cite This Reading

Facing History & Ourselves, “ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ”, last updated August 2, 2016.

You might also be interested in…

Universal declaration of human rights, the holocaust - bearing witness (uk), the holocaust - the range of responses (uk), how should we remember (uk), justice and judgement after the holocaust (uk), the roots and impact of antisemitism (uk), teaching holocaust and human behaviour (uk), resources for civic education in california, resources for civic education in massachusetts, the holocaust and jewish communities in wartime north africa, the refugee crisis and 1930s america, refugees and rescuers: the courage to act, inspiration, insights, & ways to get involved.

Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Document Type Abbreviations
• Repository and Source Abbreviations
• Fellowships & Internships
• News & Events
• Support ERPP
• Walking Tour: Eleanor Roosevelt's Washington
• Works by Eleanor Roosevelt
• Reading Eleanor Roosevelt's Handwriting
• Glossary: The People in Eleanor Roosevelt's World
• A Short Biography of Eleanor Roosevelt
• Historical Introduction
• Aids to Reading the Documents
• Browse the JFK Documents
• Editorial Method
• Browse If You Ask Me Columns
• Search If You Ask Me Columns
• Browse My Day Columns
• Search My Day Columns
• My Day Index
• The Pond's Dance Program
• The Simmons Program
• Americans of Tomorrow
• It's a Woman's World
• Talks by Mrs. Roosevelt
• Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt's Own Program
• Over Our Coffee Cups
• The Eleanor & Anna Roosevelt Program
• Today With Mrs. Roosevelt
• Mrs. Roosevelt Meets the Public
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Program
• Prospects of Mankind
• Touring the British Homefront (1942)
• In the South Pacific War Zone (1943)
• Postwar Europe: A Haunting Horror (1946)
• Europe Again: A Magna Carta for All Mankind (1948)
• Travelling Around the World (1952)
• Promoting Democracy in Japan (1953)
• The Long Way Home (1953)
• On Soviet Soil (1957)
• Audio Materials
• Miscellaneous Documents
• Universal Search
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 1
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 2
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 3
• Resources for Teachers

The Struggle for Human Rights (1948)

[Sorbonne, Paris, Sept. 28, 1948. This speech is also know as “The Struggles for the Rights of Man.”]

Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt

​     I have come this evening to talk with you on one of the greatest issues of our time—that is the preservation of human freedom. I have chosen to discuss it here in France, at the Sorbonne, because here in this soil the roots of human freedom have long ago struck deep and here they have been richly nourished. It was here the Declaration of the Rights of Man was proclaimed, and the great slogans of the French Revolution--liberty, equality, fraternity--fired the imagination of men. I have chosen to discuss this issue in Europe because this has been the scene of the greatest historic battles between freedom and tyranny. I have chosen to discuss it in the early days of the General Assembly because the issue of human liberty is decisive for the settlement of outstanding political differences and for the future of the United Nations.

​     The decisive importance of this issue was fully recognized by the founders of the United Nations at San Francisco. Concern for the preservation and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms stands at the heart of the United Nations. Its Charter is distinguished by its preoccupation with the rights and welfare of individual men and women. The United Nations has made it clear that it intends to uphold human rights and to protect the dignity of the human personality. In the preamble to the Charter the keynote is set when it declares: “We the people of the United Nations determined...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and ... to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” This reflects the basic premise of the Charter that the peace and security of mankind are dependent on mutual respect for the rights and freedoms of all.

​     One of the purposes of the United Nations is declared in article 1 to be: “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

​     This thought is repeated at several points and notably in articles 55 and 56 the Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations for the promotion of “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

​     The Human Rights Commission was given as its first and most important task the preparation of an International Bill of Rights. The General Assembly which opened its third session here in Paris a few days ago will have before it the first fruit of the Commission’s labors in this task, that is the International Declaration of Human Rights.

​     This Declaration was finally completed after much work during the last session of the Human Rights Commission in New York in the spring of 1948. The Economic and Social Council has sent it without recommendation to the General Assembly, together with other documents transmitted by the Human Rights Commission.

​     It was decided in our Commission that a Bill of Rights should contain two parts:

​     1. A Declaration which could be approved through action of the Member States of the United Nations in the General Assembly. This Declaration would have great moral force, and would say to the peoples of the world “this is what we hope human rights may mean to all people in the years to come.” We have put down here the rights that we consider basic for individual human beings the world over to have. Without them, we feel that the full development of individual personality is impossible.

​     2. The second part of the bill, which the Human Rights Commission has not yet completed because of the lack of time, is a covenant which would be in the form of a treaty to be presented to the nations of the world. Each nation, as it is prepared to do so, would ratify this covenant and the covenant would then become binding on the nations which adhere to it. Each nation ratifying would then be obligated to change its laws wherever they did not conform to the points contained in the covenant.

​     This covenant, of course, would have to be a simpler document. It could not state aspirations, which we feel to be permissible in the Declaration. It could only state rights which could be assured by law and it must contain methods of implementation, and no state ratifying the covenant could be allowed to disregard it. The methods of implementation have not yet been agreed upon, nor have they been given adequate consideration by the Commission at any of its meetings. There certainly should be discussion on the entire question of this world Bill of Human Rights and there may be acceptance by this Assembly of the Declaration if they come to agreement on it. The acceptance of the Declaration, I think, should encourage every nation in the coming months to discuss its meaning with its people so that they will be better prepared to accept the covenant with a deeper understanding of the problems involved when that is presented, we hope, a year from now and, we hope, accepted.

​     The Declaration has come from the Human Rights Commission with unanimous acceptance except for four abstentions—the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The reason for this is a fundamental difference in the conception of human rights as they exist in these states and in certain other Member States in the United Nations.

​     In the discussion before the Assembly, I think it should be made crystal clear what these differences are and tonight I want to spend a little time making them clear to you. It seems to me there is a valid reason for taking the time today to think carefully and clearly on the subject if human rights, because in the acceptance and observance of these rights lies the root, I believe, of our chance for peace in the future, and for the strengthening of the United Nations organization to the point where it can maintain peace in the future.

​     We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

​     We must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle. Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow any nation to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship.

​     There are basic differences that show up even in the use of words between a democratic and a totalitarian country. For instance “democracy” means one thing to the U.S.S.R. and another to the U.S.A. and, I know, in France. I have served since the first meeting of the nuclear commission on the Human Rights Commission, and I think this point stands out clearly.

​     The U.S.S.R. Representatives assert that they already have achieved many things which we, in what they call the “bourgeois democracies” cannot achieve because their government controls the accomplishment of these things. Our government seems powerless to them because, in the last analysis, it is controlled by the people. They would not put it that way - they would say that the people in the U.S.S.R. control their government by allowing their government to have certain absolute rights. We, on the other hand, feel that certain rights can never be granted to the government, but must be kept in the hands of the people.

​     For instance, the U.S.S.R. will assert that their press is free because the state makes it free by providing the machinery, the paper, and even the money for the salaries for the people who work on the paper. They state that there is no control over what is printed in the various papers that they subsidize in this manner, such, for instance, as a trade-union paper. But what would happen if a paper were to print ideas which were critical of the basic policies and beliefs of the Communist government? I am sure some good reason would be found for abolishing that paper.

​     It is true that there have been many cases where newspapers in the U.S.S.R. have criticized officials and their actions and have been responsible for the removal of those officials, but in doing so they did not criticize anything which was fundamental to Communist beliefs. They simply criticized methods of doing things, so one must differentiate between things which are permissible, such as criticism of any individual or of the manner of doing things, and the criticism of a belief which would be considered vital to the acceptance of Communism.

​     What are the differences, for instance, between trade-unions in the totalitarian states and in the democracies? In the totalitarian state a trade-union is an instrument used by the government to enforce duties, not to assert rights. Propaganda material which the government desires the workers to have is furnished to the trade-unions to be circulated to their members.

​     Our trade-unions, on the other hand, are solely the instruments of the workers themselves. They represent the workers in their relations with the government and with management and they are free to develop their own opinions without government help or interference. The concepts of our trade-unions and those in totalitarian countries are drastically different. There is little mutual understanding.

​     I think the best example one can give of this basic difference of the use of terms is “the right to work”. The Soviet Union insists that this is a basic right which it alone can guarantee because it alone provides full employment by the government. But the right to work in the Soviet Union means the assignment of workers to do whatever task is given to them by the government without an opportunity for the people to participate in the decision that the government should do this. A society in which everyone works is not necessarily a free society and may indeed be a slave society; on the other hand, a society in which there is widespread economic insecurity can turn freedom into a barren and vapid right for millions of people. We in the United States have come to realize it means freedom to choose one’s job, to work or not to work as one desires. We, in the United States, have come to realize, however, that people have a right to demand that their government will not allow them to starve because as individuals that cannot find work of the kind they are accustomed to doing and this is a decision brought about by public opinion which came as a result of the great depression in which many people were out of work, but we would not consider in the United States that we have gained any freedom if we were compelled to follow a dictatorial assignment to work where and when we were told. The right of choice would seem to us an important, fundamental freedom.

​     I have great sympathy with the Russian people. They love their country and have always defended it valiantly against invaders. They have been through a period of revolution, as a result of which they were for a time cut off from outside contact. They have not lost their resulting suspicion of other countries and the great difficulty is today that their government encourages this suspicion and seems to believe that force alone will bring them respect.

​     We, in the democracies, believe in a kind of international respect and action which is reciprocal. We do not think others should treat us differently from the way they wish to be treated. It is interference in other countries that especially stirs up antagonism against the Soviet Government. If it wishes to feel secure in developing its economic and political theories within it territory, then it should grant others that same security. We believe in the freedom of people to make their own mistakes. We do not interfere with them and they should not interfere with others.

​     The basic problem confronting the world today, as I said in the beginning, is the preservation of human freedom for the individual and consequently for the society of which he his a part. We are fighting this battle again today as it was fought at the time of the French Revolution and at the time of the American Revolution. The issue of human liberty is as decisive now as it was then. I want to give you my conception of what is meant in my country by freedom of the individual.

​     Long ago in London during a discussion with Mr. Vyshinsky, he told me there was no such thing as freedom for the individual in the world. All freedom of the individual was conditioned by the rights of other individuals. That, of course, I granted. I said: “We approach the question from a different point of view; we here in the United Nations are trying to develop ideals which will be broader in outlook, which will consider first the rights of man, which will consider what makes man more free: not governments, but man.”

​     The totalitarian state typically places the will of the people second to decrees promulgated by a few men at the top.

​     Naturally there must always be consideration of the rights of others; but in a democracy this is not a restriction. Indeed, in our democracies we make our freedoms secure because each of us is expected to respect the rights of others and we are free to make our own laws.

​     Freedom for our peoples is not only a right, but also a tool. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of assembly—these are not just abstract ideals to us; they are tools with which we create a way of life, a way of life in which we can enjoy freedom.

​     Sometimes the processes of democracy are slow, and I have known some of our leaders to say that a benevolent dictatorship would accomplish the ends desired in a much shorter time than it takes to go through the democratic processes of discussion and the slow formation of public opinion. But there is no way of insuring that a dictatorship will remain benevolent or that power once in the hands of a few will be returned to the people without struggle or revolution. This we have learned by experience and we accept the slow processes of democracy because we know that short-cuts compromise principles on which no compromise is possible.

​     The final expression of the opinion of the people with us is through free and honest elections, with valid choices on basic issues and candidates. The secret ballot is an essential to free elections but you must have a choice before you. I have heard my husband say many times that a people need never lose their freedom if they kept their right to a secret ballot and if they used that secret ballot to the full.

​     Basic decisions of our society are made through the expressed will of the people. That is why when we see these liberties threatened, instead of falling apart, our nation becomes unified and our democracies come together as a unified group in spite of our varied backgrounds and many racial strains.

​     In the Unites States we have a capitalistic economy. That is because public opinion favors that type of economy under the conditions in which we live. But we have imposed certain restraints; for instance, we have anti-trust laws. These are the legal evidence of the determination of the American people to maintain an economy of free competition and not to allow monopolies to take away the people’s freedom.

​     Our trade-unions grows stronger because the people come to believe that this is the proper way to guarantee the rights of the workers and that the right to organize and to bargain collectively keeps the balance between the actual producer and the investor of money and the manager in industry who watches over the man who works with his hands and who produces the materials which are our tangible wealth.

​     In the United States we are old enough not to claim perfection. We recognize that we have some problems of discrimination but we find steady progress being made in the solution of these problems. Through normal democratic processes we are coming to understand our needs and how we can attain full equality for all our people. Free discussion on the subject is permitted. Our Supreme Court has recently rendered decisions to clarify a number of our laws to guarantee the rights of all.

​     The U.S.S.R. claims it has reached a point where all races within her borders are officially considered equal and have equal rights and they insist they have no discrimination where minorities are concerned.

​     This is a laudable objective but there are other aspects of the development of freedom for the individual which are essential before the mere absence of discrimination is worth much, and these are lacking in the Soviet Union. Unless they are being denied freedoms which they want and which they see other people have, people do not usually complain of discrimination. It is these other freedoms—the basic freedoms of speech, of the press, of religion and conscience, of assembly, of fair trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, which a totalitarian government cannot safely give its people and which give meaning to freedom from discrimination.

​     It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours, that the struggle for democracy and freedom is a critical struggle, for their preservation is essential to the great objective of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security.

​     Among free men the end cannot justify the means. We know the patterns of totalitarianism—the single political party, the control of schools, press, radio, the arts, the sciences, and the church to support autocratic authority; these are the age-old patterns against which men have struggled for three thousand years. These are the signs of reaction, retreat, and retrogression.

​     The United Nations must hold fast to the heritage of freedom won by the struggle of its peoples; it must help us to pass it on to generations to come.

​     The development of the ideal of freedom and its translation into the everyday life of the people in great areas of the earth is the product of the efforts of many peoples. It is the fruit of a long tradition of vigorous thinking and courageous action. No one race and no one people can claim to have done all the work to achieve greater dignity for human beings and greater freedom to develop human personality. In each generation and in each country there must be a continuation of the struggle and new steps forward must be taken since this is preeminently a field in which to stand still is to retreat.

​     The field of human rights in not one in which compromise on fundamental principles are possible. The work of the Commission on Human Rights is illustrative. The Declaration of Human Rights provides: “ Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.” The Soviet Representative said he would agree to this right if a single phrase was added to it—“in accordance with the procedure laid down in the laws of that country.” It is obvious that to accept this would be not only to compromise but to nullify the right stated. This case forcefully illustrates the importance of the proposition that we must ever be alert not to compromise fundamental human rights merely for the sake of reaching unanimity and thus lose them.

​     As I see it, it is not going to be easy to attain unanimity with respect to our different concepts of government and human rights. The struggle is bound to be difficult and one in which we must be firm but patient. If we adhere faithfully to our principles I think it is possible for us to maintain freedom and to do so peacefully and without recourse to force.

​     The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world. People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves. In a true sense, human rights are a fundamental object of law and government in a just society. Human rights exist to the degree that they are respected by people in relations with each other and by governments in relations with their citizens.

​     The world at large is aware of the tragic consequences for human beings ruled by totalitarian systems. If we examine Hitler’s rise to power, we see how the chains are forged which keep the individual a slave and we can see many similarities in the way things are accomplished in other countries. Politically men must be free to discuss and to arrive at as many facts as possible and there must be at least a two-party system in a country because when there is only one political party, too many things can be subordinated to the interests of that one party and it becomes a tyrant and not an instrument of democratic government.

​     The propaganda we have witnessed in the recent past, like that we perceive in these days, seeks to impugn, to undermine, and to destroy the liberty and independence of peoples. Such propaganda poses to all peoples the issue whether to doubt their heritage of rights and therefore to compromise the principles by which they live, or try to accept the challenge, redouble their vigilance, and stand steadfast in the struggle to maintain and enlarge human freedoms.

​     People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.

​     The Charter of the United Nations is a guiding beacon along the way to the achievement of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. The immediate test is not only the extent to which human rights and freedoms have already been achieved, but the direction in which the world is moving. Is there a faithful compliance with the objectives of the Charter if some countries continue to curtail human rights and freedoms instead of to promote the universal respect for an observance of human rights and freedoms for all as called for by the Charter?

​     The place to discuss the issue of human rights is in the forum of the United Nations. The United Nations has been set up as the common meeting ground for nations, where we can consider together our mutual problems and take advantage of our differences in experience. It is inherent in our firm attachment to democracy and freedom that we stand always ready to use the fundamental democratic procedures of honest discussion and negotiation. It is now as always our hope that despite the wide differences in approach we face in the world today, we can with mutual good faith in the principles of the United Nations Charter, arrive at a common basis of understanding. We are here to join the meetings of this great international Assembly which meets in your beautiful capital city of Paris. Freedom for the individual is an inseparable part of the cherished traditions of France. As one of the Delegates from the United States I pray Almighty God that we may win another victory here for the rights and freedoms of all men.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Speech on Human Rights Day

Speech on Human Rights Day for Students

Every human being is deserving of the right to live in a safe place and earn a living. Even then in today’s global climate, many people are threatened to be robbed of their homes and basic rights. And in this pursuit, to inflict pain through various means one never feels safe. And for the very reason of injustices like this Human Rights Day is observed to allow these people the power to seek opportunities they are deserving of without feeling threatened. Human Rights Day speech can be given in different ways. This article entails a Long Speech on Human Rights Day and a Short Human Rights Day Speech.

Long Human Rights Day Speech

This format of a long 5-minute speech can be useful for students in grades 8-12 as they can discuss in detail the importance of this day and convey the message.

Good Morning, everyone, I am here to speak on a very crucial topic that is gaining even more attention today than ever before Human Rights and Human Rights Day. 73 years ago in 1948 on December 10th UN (United Nations), General Assembly adopted the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The proper implementation was not until they passed the official invitation to all the States and interested organisations after the approval of the Assembly in 1950. Since then, this day is annually commemorated for the celebration of Human Rights.

Today the world that we live in is divided by so many opinions and discriminations against gender, race, caste, and religion. The ones who are at the brunt of the receiving end of this harshness are the innocent children. Every child and human being deserves equal treatment in any room they enter regardless of their ethnicity and colour or gender.

Since we don’t live in an ideal world, the human rights of these discriminated people are under threat and they are only struggling and in doing so many have lost their lives as well. So to safeguard their interests and review the complaints of Human Rights Violation, the NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) is a body in India. It functions with similar objectives and aims to accomplish these missions like institutions for Human Rights in the world. It is a recommendatory body of constitution formed with the conformity of Principles of Paris. It acts according to the guidelines passed by the Government for the PHRA (Protection of Human Rights Act).

The main objective is to end human rights violations where some people are deprived of basic requirements like food, shelter, education, hygiene, and a safe place to grow and create opportunities for growth. This is a step in the direction to maintain peace and sanity in this ever-growing greedy and violent world. And it takes part in the Global Event wherein people celebrate the goodness in differences of the human beings and people who make an effort and an extra step to fight for this right also get awarded. It is a 5-yearly tradition that they award the United Nations Peace Prize in the Field of Human Rights and the Nobel Peace Prize. One such brave recipient of this award is Malala Yousafzai, a young girl who stood up against the Taliban who were depriving young children, especially girls of education. And during her fight, she managed to survive a gunshot and is still taking over the world and raising funds for educating girls.

Her efforts and achievements are truly noteworthy and deserving of all the praises and awards. Whenever we encounter any such violation of human rights in our lives, let’s be inspired enough to take a step to end this and celebrate the rights to be in peace and harmony.

Short Speech on Human Rights Day

This form of a Short Human Rights Day Speech is helpful for students in grades 4-7 to convey the importance of this day in brief.

Good morning everyone, I Abc (mention your name) feel honoured to be here today and talk about Human Rights Day. We are very fortunate to have a home, a roof over our heads, food, and are able to come to school safely. These are basic human rights and every being is deserving of this. But in so many places around the world people are robbed of their right to shelter, food, and even education, the most concerning being the safety of girls.

The United Nations is a body that has taken the responsibility to safeguard the rights of the victims of this violation on 10th December 1948, 73 years ago the UN General Assembly approved Article 423 (V) and declared the celebration of Human Rights Day. It was in 1950 that the invitation was officially extended to other States and organisations whose values and aims matched the objectives of UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Bringing harmony and peace into the world by observing and trying to eliminate the problems and complaints received from people who are facing the brutalities of violation of Human Rights. This day is celebrated worldwide to commemorate the proclamation made by the UN in 1948 on December 10.

The Indian Government confers the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) and under the conformity of Principles of Paris, NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) is formed.

It’s important to be aware of the state in our country and take a step to fight against what’s wrong so human rights are intact and served right for the purpose.

10 Line Speech on Human Rights Day

This is a 2-minute Speech on Human Rights helpful to convey the idea and meaning to students in grades 1-3.

Human Rights Day is observed and celebrated on 10th December every year worldwide.

It is on this day in the year 1948, the United Nations acknowledged and proclaimed in their General Assembly to observe the celebration of human rights.

Other states and interested organisations who also work for safeguarding human rights and ending the violations were extended the invitations.

And the work actively started in the year 1950.

The Indian body that works extensively in this regard with the United Nations is  NHRC (National Human Rights Commission).

It was formed following the Principles of Paris.

NHRC also abides by the ideologies of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) stated by the Government of India.

The primary objective is to keep safe from discrimination with regards to any type of differences like race, religion, caste, and creed.

The rights are basic and universal like the right to life, free from discrimination, torture, slavery, and degrading treatment.

Any type of violation is a harm and threat to humankind and each step taken in the direction to protect these rights is in the interest of peace which is the need of the hour.

FAQs on Speech on Human Rights Day

1. What is the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?

The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is an international document adopted by the UN assembly on the date of December 10, 1948, as Resolution 217 during its third session. The document entails the basic rights and freedoms of all human beings. At that time, from the 58 members present at the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none voted against it, eight abstained, and two did not vote. The declaration consists of a complete 30 articles explaining in detail the "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" of human beings.

2. What are the basic human rights provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? 

There are a total of 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which included the "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" of a human being. A simplified version of these rights, which are included in these 30 articles are given below: 

All human beings are born Free and Equal, everyone has the right to be treated in the same way.

Don’t discriminate against any human beings, whatever our differences.

Everybody has the right to live in freedom and safety.

Having or making slaves is not accepted.

Nobody has the right to hurt or torture anybody.

All the rights written in the declaration should be respected everywhere.

Everybody should be treated equally before the law.

Nobody can put a person in jail or detain him/her without any good reason. Neither one can send the person away from his/her country.

You should be able to ask the law and law agencies to help if any of your human rights are threatened.

The person under trial has the right to have a free and fair public trial. The judges of the trial should not tell anyone what to do or not.

Everyone should respect this statement “Proven till guilty”. A person under trial is not a criminal until he/she is proven to be guilty of a wrong deed.

Everyone has their right to privacy, one can’t interfere with the other person’s privacy, nobody can bother you or your family without good reason.

A person can live wherever he/she wants to in their country and travel to wherever they want to.

If a person’s country can’t provide a safe place to live, then the person can seek asylum in other countries.

We also have the right to belong to a country and have a Nationality.

3. When is Human Rights Day celebrated?

Human Rights Day is celebrated on the occasion of the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the UN assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on the date of December 10, 1948. This “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” entails the fundamental rights of human beings who live on the planet. This document “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is translated into more than 500 languages, hence holding the Guinness World Record for the most translated document throughout the world.

4. Why is 10th December celebrated as Human Rights Day?

Human Rights Day is celebrated on 10 December annually across the world to celebrate the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the UN assembly as Resolution 217. 48 out of 58 countries that were present at the United Nations, voted in favour of this document named “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

It is celebrated in order to acknowledge this “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as to acknowledge the rights that are provided to every human being living on mother earth. To discuss the issues which harm these basic rights of human beings in any or sense anywhere around the globe.

5. What is the theme for Human Rights Day 2021 and 2020?

The theme of Human Rights Day 2021 was “equality”. As in today's world, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Human Rights Day of 2021, is to discuss how to deal with inequality.

In the year 2020, the theme of Human Rights Day was "Recover Better - Stand Up for Human Rights". The year 2020 was the year of COVID-19 and hence, the Human Rights Day theme was how to recover from the pandemic.

Speech on Human Rights in simple and easy words

Table of Contents

Speech on Human Rights: The concept of Human Rights holds great significance in our lives, especially in today’s time when the exploitation of human beings is increasing day by day. The exploitation has been reported more than ever. To understand the basic rights of a human, it becomes necessary for the teachers to let students get themselves abreast of them. So here we give you both short speeches on Human Rights as well as long speeches on human rights to learn about human rights and the various categories under it. The content that we provide is comprehensive and can help students to learn all about basic rights to live life with dignity. We can confidently say that our content of the speeches on Human Rights are relevant to the topics and are a good reference point for all the learners.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Speech on Human Rights­­­­­­­

Speech on human rights­­­­­­­ – 1.

Hon’ble Principal, Vice Principal, My Fell­­­­­­ow Colleagues and Dear Students – Good Morning to everyone present here!­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

I would like to utilize this opportunity to share my views on human rights and their relevance in today’s world.

All people on Earth have these rights, which work for everyone, no matter who they are or where they’re from, and they exist to safeguard against harm and violations.

Let us first understand what exactly Human rights entail. Broadly speaking, human rights are such rights which each individual becomes entitled to by virtue of his birth and nationality. These rights are considered to be indispensable for any human being irrespective of his/her nationality, race, religion, language, etc. Different countries have their own set of legislatively backed human rights which its citizens are entitled to but the basic theme across is the same – to provide each of its citizens equal rights and not to discriminate among them.

The concept of Human rights has been constantly evolving over the period of time. There have been some basic tenets in the way human societies functioned which recognized the importance of giving each individual access to certain rights. The society recognizes these rights of the individual and respects them.

The earliest civilizations tried codifying the rights as part of the law. Hammurabi’s law was one of the first recorded mentions of the rights of individuals. However, these rights across the societies varied for different individuals. Although the basic concept has been that all citizens are equal, the definition of citizens vastly varied and there were many people who would fall beyond the gambit of citizens and hence do not have a statutory backing to their human rights. Over the period of time, the efforts of various social reformers and activists across different time periods have been to bring in more people into this concept of being citizens.

The international law and theories which started taking shape around 19 th century have attempted towards defining the human rights which are rights each individual is entitled to irrespective of the race, religion or culture. The qualification of being an individual defined here is in larger sense unlike the definition of citizens in the earlier societies. The efforts towards abolishing slavery, fights for equal rights to women, universal adult franchise are few of the efforts that ensured the discrimination of whom to be recognized as being eligible to have rights have been reduced and every individual by virtue of being born as human being is entitled to human rights.

In today’s world, most of the countries recognize human rights and make it a part of their constitutional provisions. The countries which have not yet recognized the basic equality of all its citizens are trying to bring in changes in and provide safeguards for all the citizens to be enfranchised of the rights. These countries face the challenge of deep rooted stigma and discrimination carried down from many centuries. Implementing and practicing at the ground level still remains a problem. Individuals and in many cases large groups of individuals are denied their basic human rights. The main reason for it is the lack of awareness of what they are entitled to.

Human rights are universal and everyone needs to be educated on these and understand that no matter where they are born and who they are, by virtue of being born as humans some rights automatically become a part and parcel of their life in a social set up.

Speech on Human Rights­­­­­­­ – 2

Good Morning Everyone!

Today, please allow me to utilize this opportunity and talk on a very important topic on which each one of us should have a fair knowledge and that is Speech Human rights!

Human rights belong to everyone, no matter who they are. These rights cover life, freedom, and more, for all people, regardless of differences

The concept of Human rights as how we define now is of a recent origin in context of the long Human history. Modern thinkers and commentators attribute human rights to be a product of the French revolution in the 18 th century where the values of liberty, equality and fraternity stood as the central theme for the whole struggle. However the human yearning for basic rights of all the individuals has been a fundamental aspect all through the course of human history. It is this understanding of the basic nature of human rights that we all need to be able to comprehend and realize its meaning, purpose and of course importance in the present times.

The various revolutions and movements which took place in the modern history like French Revolution, American Revolution, the various freedom movements against colonialist rule, anti-slavery movement, women rights movements, etc all have a common theme running through them. It is to recognize the basic right of each individual to lead a life of equality and freedom. These movements helped shape the modern concept of Human rights. There have been many charters, declarations, statements etc which have been drafted and implemented by various authorities around the world to put into effect Human rights to each of its citizens.

United Nations Organization (UNO) has recognized the importance of Human rights by declaring December 10 th as World Human Rights day. This has been adopted since the year 1948. The rights can be included as part of the Human rights varies from each country to country. Modern states across the world have given prominence to this concept of Human rights by providing the citizens with rights which are backed up by the constitution and legislation. India, through its constitution provides its citizens set of fundamental rights. All the citizens in India have equal right to enjoy these fundamental rights and have a right to appeal when any of these fundamental rights are violated. Some Human rights like “Right to live” have a global acceptance and can be exercised in any country within the legal statuettes.

The main idea which I intend to communicate is the need for each one of us to understand the importance of Human rights. The need has a duality to it. The first reason we need to understand about Human rights is for self. As citizens of a nation, it is of primary importance that we have an understanding of the rights that we are entitled to. This would help us to exercise the rights and fight against any exploitation. This understanding helps to serve a larger purpose as well. It is to recognize the rights of other citizens or in a larger context the rights of other human beings and ensure that we do not infringe on them.

This understanding to fight for self and value others claim form the basis for practicing human rights in its true sense.

Speech on Human Rights – 3

Dear Friends – Warm Greetings to all of you! I hope this day finds you in the best of spirit.

Today, I am going to address a very crucial aspect of human life, i.e. Speech on Human Rights. Human rights are defined as those set of rights which are fundamental to human existence. Since they have a universal appeal, people from all over the world are entitled to it. Thus, these rights other than having a universal and fundamental dimension carry a global appeal as well. These rights enable a man to live under no fear or threat. Universalization of human rights without any discrimination is a mark of civilized society. These rights are framed while keeping in mind fundamental human demands and needs. Thus, human rights have found its place in the constitution of every nation.

And, it is the responsibility of very nation to secure human rights for its citizens and give them the liberty to perform actions within their interest, which cause no threat to the integrity of others. As these rights carry a universal appeal, human rights and problems associated with them have become a cause of global concern. In fact, the UN has adopted Human Rights Charter and has asked various governments to not only give them a due place in their constitutional body, but also ensure their enforcement. It was on the 10 th of December in the year 1948 that UN came up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the contemporary times, a growing concern has been observed towards safeguarding human rights.

The issues related with human rights differ from society to society whereas the entitlement of social, economic, civil as well as political rights of the people differ from one nation to the other as per the laws governing those rights of the people belonging to a specific country. For instance, the UN has taken much interest in doing way with the discrimination caused against women. Other than that, racial discrimination also forms a major cause of concern under human rights violation. Despite the fact that Black people are a majority in South Africa, they do not enjoy political or social rights as much as white people do, who continue to dominate black people. Nevertheless, this practice of racism has been abolished by the UN and a resolution too has been passed in this regard.

Therefore, it becomes the utmost duty of every nation to form such laws and create such conditions where human rights of the citizens can be protected. Our country, India, has a democratic set up where its citizens are entitled to enjoy basic human rights, in addition to the freedom of expression. These rights are defined as Fundamental Rights, which needless to say form a significant part of the Indian Constitution.

Our Indian Constitution assures six fundamental rights, which are:

• Right to Freedom
• Right to Equality
• Right to choose Religion
• Right against Exploitation
• Right to Constitutional Remedies
• Cultural and Educational Rights

These human rights are founded on the doctrine of human solidarity, support, growth and access of everyone to the common legacy of humankind.

Speech on Human Rights – 4

Hon’ble Principal, Vice Principal, Teachers and My Dear Students – Good Morning to one and all!

I, Priyanka Vashisht from Standard-IX (C), wish to deliver a speech on Human Rights. As Social Science is my favorite subject the best topic that I could think of for this speech ceremony is Human Rights and more so because it’s a vital part of human existence. Why vital because we do not live in isolation, but in a democratic set up where everyone has certain roles and responsibilities to deliver. Besides, each one of us is also entitled to certain rights so that we can enjoy our status as human beings.

In a civilized society, rights play an extremely critical role in the overall growth of human personality. The individual rights are referred to as conditions under which an individual is able to attain his goals or ideals by enjoying the privileges that come with a minimum set of rights. If I were to define human rights, I would define it in the words of Harold Joseph Laski, who said “Rights, in fact, are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best”. To put it in simpler terms, rights are the fundamental necessities for a man to lead a good life, which are acknowledged under the state’s legal code.

Human rights are universal in nature having a legal and moral framework, which aim towards safeguarding the interest of the people from rigorous legal, political and social abuses. Following are the human rights examples:

• Freedom of Movement
• Right to Expression
• Right to Freedom of Religion
• Right to associate with a Political Party
• Right to a Fair Trial when accused of a crime
• Right not to be Tortured

In addition, there are certain social and economic rights as well. Let’s take a look:

• Right to Education
• Right to Work
• Right to have a good living standard
• Right to have an equal pay for equal work
• Right to leisure and rest

These rights have moral grounds and have found a place in law at both national as well as international levels. They are primarily addressed to the governments for their observance and enforcement. The chief source of the modern-day thought behind human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). The human rights philosophy attends to such questions as the existence, nature, content, universality and validation of human rights.

However, despite these clearly formulated set of human rights, multiple cases of human rights breach at different places of this world have been observed. I firmly believe that in such a situation an everlasting state of prosperity cannot prevail in a nation where its natives cannot enjoy human rights which are so integral to their existence.

Now, I would request my other fellow students to join me on stage and say a few words in this regard. Thank You!

Check out some Trending Speech Topics for Students and Kids

Speech on Human Rights FAQs

How do you start a speech about human rights.

Begin with a strong statement or a touching story related to human rights to grab your audience's attention.

What is the best human rights speech?

The best human rights speech is one that is passionate, well-researched, and inspires people to take action for justice and equality.

What are the 7 main human rights?

The 7 main human rights include life, liberty, equality, dignity, justice, education, and freedom of expression.

What are human rights speeches?

Human rights speeches are talks or presentations that address issues related to basic freedoms and fairness in society.

The best human rights speech is one that touches hearts, educates, and motivates positive change.

You can start a human rights speech with a compelling story, a shocking fact, or a thought-provoking question to engage your audience.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Please select class

Fight bigotry whenever and wherever it appears, UN chief declares

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Top UN officials on Friday called for a stand against bigotry “wherever and whenever it appears”, paying tribute to the hundreds of thousands of Roma and Sinti brutally murdered during the Second World War by the Nazis.

On the night of 2 August 1944, the last 4,300 Roma and Sinti in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp were murdered by the Nazi forces, despite their fierce resistance. That marked the killing of more than 500,000 members of the community, representing at least a quarter of their total population at the time.

The Nazis’s genocidal campaign also claimed the lives of six million Jews and targeted LGBTIQ+ individuals, persons with disabilities, political dissidents and other minorities.  

Prejudice remains today

In a message marking the European Holocaust Memorial Day for Roma and Sinti, UN Secretary-General António Guterres also honoured the survivors and commended the courage of their resistance.

He warned, however, that the prejudice that fuelled the Nazis’s atrocities did not end with their downfall.

“It remains today. The sad reality is that Roma people face rampant discrimination in all areas of life and all parts of the world, not least in Europe,” he said.

“Extremist and xenophobic groups are spreading hate speech, scapegoating marginalised communities and sowing fear and division.”

Stand together

Mr. Guterres urged everyone around the world to stand together and fight bigotry in all its forms.

“We must stand together…to protect and promote the human rights of Roma and to build a world in which all people live in dignity, peace and freedom,” he added, renewing the United Nations’s commitment as an “unwavering ally in that cause”.

Learn from history

In a separate message , Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, cautioned against the “unimaginable horrors” that can flow from hatred and dehumanisation.

“We must heed the lessons of history,” he told, via video, participants at the Passing on Memory for the Future of Holocaust Remembrance and Education Conference in Kraków, Poland.

“Discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation. This is centuries old, but persisting today against a backdrop of escalating hate speech against minorities more generally, including on social media and by some populist leaders.”

Mr. Türk shared personal recollections of the consequences of anti-gypsyism in the immediate aftermath of the Kosovo conflict, where he was involved in establishing a human rights monitoring initiative to address the discrimination and violence faced by Roma, Egyptian and Ashkali communities.

He added that the Roma in Europe continue to face severe difficulties, as revealed in a 2021 European Union human rights survey. It found that 17 per cent had endured some form of hate-based harassment in the past 12 months and that almost 80 per cent were at risk of poverty.

The UN rights chief welcomed some positive steps, noting that Sweden’s efforts on public memorialisation and Germany’s appointment of a Federal Commissioner on anti-gypsyism.

“Much more needs to be done, though, to ensure all these communities are able to access their rights to education, work, housing, health, public services and more,” he urged.

• Roma and Sinti

What Kamala Harris has said so far on key issues in her campaign

As she ramps up her nascent presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris is revealing how she will address the key issues facing the nation.

In speeches and rallies, she has voiced support for continuing many of President Joe Biden’s measures, such as lowering drug costs , forgiving student loan debt and eliminating so-called junk fees. But Harris has made it clear that she has her own views on some key matters, particularly Israel’s treatment of Gazans in its war with Hamas.

In a departure from her presidential run in 2020, the Harris campaign has confirmed that she’s moved away from many of her more progressive stances, such as her interest in a single-payer health insurance system and a ban on fracking.

Harris is also expected to put her own stamp and style on matters ranging from abortion to the economy to immigration, as she aims to walk a fine line of taking credit for the administration’s accomplishments while not being jointly blamed by voters for its shortcomings.

Her early presidential campaign speeches have offered insights into her priorities, though she’s mainly voiced general talking points and has yet to release more nuanced plans. Like Biden, she intends to contrast her vision for America with that of former President Donald Trump. ( See Trump’s campaign promises here .)

“In this moment, I believe we face a choice between two different visions for our nation: one focused on the future, the other focused on the past,” she told members of the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at an event in Indianapolis in late July. “And with your support, I am fighting for our nation’s future.”

Here’s what we know about Harris’ views:

Harris took on the lead role of championing abortion rights for the administration after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. This past January, she started a “ reproductive freedoms tour ” to multiple states, including a stop in Minnesota thought to be the first by a sitting US president or vice president at an abortion clinic .

On abortion access, Harris embraced more progressive policies than Biden in the 2020 campaign, as a candidate criticizing his previous support for the Hyde Amendment , a measure that blocks federal funds from being used for most abortions.

Policy experts suggested that although Harris’ current policies on abortion and reproductive rights may not differ significantly from Biden’s, as a result of her national tour and her own focus on maternal health , she may be a stronger messenger.

High prices are a top concern for many Americans who are struggling to afford the cost of living after a spell of steep inflation. Many voters give Biden poor marks for his handling of the economy, and Harris may also face their wrath.

In her early campaign speeches, Harris has echoed many of the same themes as Biden, saying she wants to give Americans more opportunities to get ahead. She’s particularly concerned about making care – health care, child care, elder care and family leave – more affordable and available.

Harris promised at a late July rally to continue the Biden administration’s drive to eliminate so-called “junk fees” and to fully disclose all charges, such as for events, lodging and car rentals. In early August, the administration proposed a rule that would ban airlines from charging parents extra fees to have their kids sit next to them.

On day one, I will take on price gouging and bring down costs. We will ban more of those hidden fees and surprise late charges that banks and other companies use to pad their profits.”

Since becoming vice president, Harris has taken more moderate positions, but a look at her 2020 campaign promises reveals a more progressive bent than Biden.

As a senator and 2020 presidential candidate, Harris proposed providing middle-class and working families with a refundable tax credit of up to $6,000 a year (per couple) to help keep up with living expenses. Titled the LIFT the Middle Class Act, or Livable Incomes for Families Today, the measure would have cost at the time an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years.

Unlike a typical tax credit, the bill would allow taxpayers to receive the benefit – up to $500 – on a monthly basis so families don’t have to turn to payday loans with very high interest rates.

As a presidential candidate, Harris also advocated for raising the corporate income tax rate to 35%, where it was before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through Congress reduced the rate to 21%. That’s higher than the 28% Biden has proposed.

Affordable housing was also on Harris’ radar. As a senator, she introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would establish a refundable tax credit for renters who annually spend more than 30% of their gross income on rent and utilities. The amount of the credit would range from 25% to 100% of the excess rent, depending on the renter’s income.

Harris called housing a human right and said in a 2019 news release on the bill that every American deserves to have basic security and dignity in their own home.

Consumer debt

Hefty debt loads, which weigh on people’s finances and hurt their ability to buy homes, get car loans or start small businesses, are also an area of interest to Harris.

As vice president, she has promoted the Biden administration’s initiatives on student debt, which have so far forgiven more than $168 billion for nearly 4.8 million borrowers . In mid-July, Harris said in a post on X that “nearly 950,000 public servants have benefitted” from student debt forgiveness, compared with only 7,000 when Biden was inaugurated.

A potential Harris administration could keep that momentum going – though some of Biden’s efforts have gotten tangled up in litigation, such as a program aimed at cutting monthly student loan payments for roughly 3 million borrowers enrolled in a repayment plan the administration implemented last year.

The vice president has also been a leader in the White House efforts to ban medical debt from credit reports, noting that those with medical debt are no less likely to repay a loan than those who don’t have unpaid medical bills.

In a late July statement praising North Carolina’s move to relieve the medical debt of about 2 million residents, Harris said that she is “committed to continuing to relieve the burden of medical debt and creating a future where every person has the opportunity to build wealth and thrive.”

Health care

Harris, who has had shifting stances on health care in the past, confirmed in late July through her campaign that she no longer supports a single-payer health care system .

During her 2020 campaign, Harris advocated for shifting the US to a government-backed health insurance system but stopped short of wanting to completely eliminate private insurance.

The measure called for transitioning to a Medicare-for-All-type system over 10 years but continuing to allow private insurance companies to offer Medicare plans.

The proposal would not have raised taxes on the middle class to pay for the coverage expansion. Instead, it would raise the needed funds by taxing Wall Street trades and transactions and changing the taxation of offshore corporate income.

When it comes to reducing drug costs, Harris previously proposed allowing the federal government to set “a fair price” for any drug sold at a cheaper price in any economically comparable country, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan or Australia. If manufacturers were found to be price gouging, the government could import their drugs from abroad or, in egregious cases, use its existing but never-used “march-in” authority to license a drug company’s patent to a rival that would produce the medication at a lower cost.

Harris has been a champion on climate and environmental justice for decades. As California’s attorney general, Harris sued big oil companies like BP and ConocoPhillips, and investigated Exxon Mobil for its role in climate change disinformation. While in the Senate, she sponsored the Green New Deal resolution.

During her 2020 campaign, she enthusiastically supported a ban on fracking — but a Harris campaign official said in late July that she no longer supports such a ban.

Fracking is the process of using liquid to free natural gas from rock formations – and the primary mode for extracting gas for energy in battleground Pennsylvania. During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, she said she would start “with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands.” She walked that back later when she became Biden’s running mate.

Biden has been the most pro-climate president in history, and climate advocates find Harris to be an exciting candidate in her own right. Democrats and climate activists are planning to campaign on the stark contrasts between Harris and Trump , who vowed to push America decisively back to fossil fuels, promising to unwind Biden’s climate and clean energy legacy and pull America out of its global climate commitments.

If elected, one of the biggest climate goals Harris would have to craft early in her administration is how much the US would reduce its climate pollution by 2035 – a requirement of the Paris climate agreement .

Immigration

Harris has quickly started trying to counter Trump’s attacks on her immigration record.

Her campaign released a video in late July citing Harris’ support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and Trump’s successful push to scuttle a bipartisan immigration deal that included some of the toughest border security measures in recent memory.

The vice president has changed her position on border control since her 2020 campaign, when she suggested that Democrats needed to “critically examine” the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, after being asked whether she sided with those in the party arguing to abolish the department.

In June of this year, the White House announced a crackdown on asylum claims meant to continue reducing crossings at the US-Mexico border – a policy that Harris’ campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, indicated in late July to CBS News would continue under a Harris administration.

Trump’s attacks stem from Biden having tasked Harris with overseeing diplomatic efforts in Central America in March 2021. While Harris focused on long-term fixes, the Department of Homeland Security remained responsible for overseeing border security.

She has only occasionally talked about her efforts as the situation along the US-Mexico border became a political vulnerability for Biden. But she put her own stamp on the administration’s efforts, engaging the private sector.

Harris pulled together the Partnership for Central America, which has acted as a liaison between companies and the US government. Her team and the partnership are closely coordinating on initiatives that have led to job creation in the region. Harris has also engaged directly with foreign leaders in the region.

Experts credit Harris’ ability to secure private-sector investments as her most visible action in the region to date but have cautioned about the long-term durability of those investments.

Israel-Hamas

The Israel-Hamas war is the most fraught foreign policy issue facing the country and has spurred a multitude of protests around the US since it began in October.

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late July, Harris gave a forceful and notable speech about the situation in Gaza.

We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent.”

Harris echoed Biden’s repeated comments about the “ironclad support” and “unwavering commitment” to Israel. The country has a right to defend itself, she said, while noting, “how it does so, matters.”

However, the empathy she expressed regarding the Palestinian plight and suffering was far more forceful than what Biden has said on the matter in recent months. Harris mentioned twice the “serious concern” she expressed to Netanyahu about the civilian deaths in Gaza, the humanitarian situation and destruction she called “catastrophic” and “devastating.”

She went on to describe “the images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time.”

Harris emphasized the need to get the Israeli hostages back from Hamas captivity, naming the eight Israeli-American hostages – three of whom have been killed.

But when describing the ceasefire deal in the works, she didn’t highlight the hostage for prisoner exchange or aid to be let into Gaza. Instead, she singled out the fact that the deal stipulates the withdrawal by the Israeli military from populated areas in the first phase before withdrawing “entirely” from Gaza before “a permanent end to the hostilities.”

Harris didn’t preside over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in late July, instead choosing to stick with a prescheduled trip to a sorority event in Indiana.

Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, having met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at least six times and announcing last month $1.5 billion for energy assistance, humanitarian needs and other aid for the war-torn country.

At the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Harris said: “I will make clear President Joe Biden and I stand with Ukraine. In partnership with supportive, bipartisan majorities in both houses of the United States Congress, we will work to secure critical weapons and resources that Ukraine so badly needs. And let me be clear: The failure to do so would be a gift to Vladimir Putin.”

More broadly, NATO is central to our approach to global security. For President Biden and me, our sacred commitment to NATO remains ironclad. And I do believe, as I have said before, NATO is the greatest military alliance the world has ever known.”

Police funding

The Harris campaign has also walked back the “defund the police” sentiment that Harris voiced in 2020. What she meant is she supports being “tough and smart on crime,” Mitch Landrieu, national co-chair for the Harris campaign and former mayor of New Orleans, told CNN’s Pamela Brown in late July.

In the midst of nationwide 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Harris voiced support for the “defund the police” movement, which argues for redirecting funds from law enforcement to social services. Throughout that summer, Harris supported the movement and called for demilitarizing police departments.

Democrats largely backed away from calls to defund the police after Republicans attempted to tie the movement to increases in crime during the 2022 midterm elections.

Related links

Additional credits