Countries in the world to have implemented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their own Constitution

Question

I heard that France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy and Greece implemented it. And also the UK though they don't have a Constitution per se, but the Bill. But I'm not sure how accurate this is and I need to know if anyone else can confirm and give me sources on this? Please?

Answer 1

I don't know of any country that has taken the universal declaration of human rights and incorporated it, word for word, into their own constitution.  However every country that ratified it gave it prominence (arguably pre-emanance) within their law, as it is pretty much a standard feature of all political systems that international treaties which the country has entered into take precedence over all other law (although not a supreme constitution, such as the USA's).

As for Europe, it has a complex system of human rights law.

Basically every country in Europe is a member of the Council of Europe, a forum for all the states to discuss issues of concern.  This should not be confused with the European Council, which is the summit meetings between the heads of the EU member states, and so totally different.  The Council of Europe was set up after the second world war by the Treaty of London, and includes not only the EU members but also Russia and the eastern bloc, with Canada, the USA, Mexico and Japan all invited as observers.

The countries that are part of the Council of Europe are party to the European Convention on Human Rights (officially: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).  Anyone in any of the states can sue their government to enforce these rights in the European Court of Human Rights, and all signatory states agree to recognise this court's decisions as binding.  the European Convention on Human Rights goes beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, prohibiting things like the death penalty.

The European Union has its own human rights charter called the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  It was created by the European Parliament, Commission and unanimous agreement of all member state governments in the Council of Ministers, but did not have any legally binding force.  This will change next year when all 27 EU member states have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, it will be binding on all EU institutions and the national and subordinate institutions of 25 of the EU member states; but it will not apply in Poland or the UK.    

Instead the UK has its own Human Rights Act that since 1998 has taken precedence over all other UK law.  This act basically gave extra powers to British courts, allowing them to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights so that people in Britain do not have to go to the European Court of Human Rights.  The reason for Britain choosing this method rather than simply entering into the Fundamental Rights part of the EU Lisbon Treaty, is complicated but relates to Britain's constitutional priciple of Parliamentary Sovereignty:  It means that courts can recommend Parliament change aspects of the laws that are in violation of the Convention, and can punish the state (by fines) for not doing so, but officially at least cannot strike down such laws the way the US Supreme Court can.  This is important in British constitutional theory, as no court is superior to a sovereign parliament:  As you rightly said the UK has no official written constitution but does have a thousand years of laws and tradituions that act as a constitution - and parliamentary sovereignty has been said to be "the rock upon which the entire state is founded" (Dicey).  However it is a practical limitation on the power of Parliament, and is said to be inspired by canada's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also limits parliamentary authority without violating the notion of sovereignty.  The current British government has been talking of bringing in a new Bill of Rights, but the process is only at a very early stage.

As you can see though human rights laws are very enforcable in the EU (including Britain), which gives huge status to treaties that actually go beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And even in the rest of Europe (including Russia), which have signed up to the binding authority of an international European Court of Human Rights.  Outside of Europe many countries also enforce the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, through their own legal texts.  Canada and Australia have their own 'constitutionally' (unwritten - like Britain) protected human rights, and obviously the US Supreme Court enforces constitutional rights all the time (although arguably falling short on issues such as the death penalty).  

There is an international criminal court which is empowered to enforce decisions on crimes against humanity, but only in the countries that have signed up to it (not China, the US or Russia).  Although some countries declare their own courts to have universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity - so places like Belgium are arguably prepared to arrest and put on trial anyone from any country suspected of crimes such as genocide or ethnic cleansing, regardless of where in the world the crime allegedly took place.

Hope this helps!