Paul Gordon Lauren, Ph.D. Biography
Paul Gordon Lauren is the first person to be named as a Regents Professor at The University of Montana. He is an internationally-recognized teacher and scholar on diplomacy, international relations, and human rights. He has published many articles, chapters, and eleven books, all or portions of which have been translated into seven different languages, including the widely-read Force and Statecraft, the highly-acclaimed The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and the award-winning Power and Prejudice: The Politics and Diplomacy of Racial Discrimination. Professor Lauren has received the Distinguished Scholar Award, Outstanding Advisor to Students Award, the Most Inspirational Teacher Award, the Robert Pantzer Award, and the Award for Distinguished Service to International Education at The University of Montana as well as the CASE Professor of the Year Award and the Governor’s Humanities Award. He served as the founding director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center and as the Mansfield Professor of Ethics and Public Affairs. In addition, he has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar, a Senior Fulbright Specialist, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, a Peace Fellow, a Rockefeller Foundation Humanities Fellow, and a Distinguished Lecturer for the U.S. Department of State. Professor Lauren has presented many lectures throughout the United States and around the world to a wide variety of audiences, including students and professors, the general public, activists, analysts, attorneys and judges, professional diplomats, legislators, and policy makers. He also has delivered invited addresses before the Smithsonian Institution, the Nobel Peace Institute, and the United Nations.
Leader Hon Fonoti of Western Samoa rated at the same level as Gandhi of India and three others for World Peace and Freedom.
From Book: The Evolution of International Human Rights; visions seen; by Paul Gordon Lauren. Edition 2. (Page 176: Chapter 6)
Peace and a Charter with Human Rights
Peace, in their mind, thus required that “all human beings, irrespective of race, creed, or sex, have the right to persue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security, and equal opportunity.
Many also began to define peace as more clearly entailing the protection of civil and political rights for all people. After their own recent history, they will no longer willing to accept the old proposition that how a government treated its own people remained an exclusive and simple matter of “domestic jurisdiction.” The crushing of all opposition, the denial of freedom of speech and assembly, the elimination of due process, and the expansion of the power of the state over the lives of individuals and groups by Hitler, Mussolini, and the militarists in Japan – all behind the protective shield of national sovereignty – convinced them that the abuse of rights at home could all too quickly spill over national borders and lead to war and even genocide. “As basic human rights are protected in each country, the prevention of war is made easier,” declared the Commission to Study the Organisation of Peace. The reason for this, they believed, could be stated directly and in light of recent experience:
Now, as a result of the Second World War, it has become clear that a regime of violence and oppression within any nation of the civilized world is a matter of concern for all the rest. It is a disease in the body politic which is contagious because the government that rest upon violence will, by its very nature, be even more ready to do violence to foreigners than to its own fellow citizens, especially if it can thus escape the consequences of its acts at home. The foreign policy of despots is inherently one which carries with it a constant risk to the peace and security of others. In short, if aggression is the key-note of domestic policy, it will also be the clue to foreign relations.
The ordeal of this particular war similarly contributed to the concept that any lasting peace would require an implementation of the right of self-determination. Part of this, of course, resulted from the many promises made by the Allies to distance themselves from their adversaries and to solicit support for the larger crusade. They promoted the idea at every opportunity that the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they would live remained one of the most essential ingredients of any peace settlement. Thus, the Atlantic Charter, the Declaration of the United Nations, the many speeches by Allied leaders, and even the Declaration on Liberated Europe emerging as late as February 1945 from the Yalta Conference between the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union all fostered this belief. But there was something more as well. The war produced millions of new European victims of aggression at the hands of the Axis powers. As a result, their own first-hand experience made them much more sympathetic than ever to the sufferings of others forced to live under conquest and subjugation, including those indigenous people within their colonial empires, who vowed that there could never be lasting peace as long as they were denied their freedom. Thus, many victims in the west began to join with many others like Gandhi in India, Ho Chi Minh of Indochina, Nkrumah and Kenyatta of Africa, Carlos Romulo of the Philippines, and Fonoti of Western Samoa in regarding the right of self-determination as absolutely necessary for international peace.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: on Page 207
Simultaneous with these intense debates on the new human rights agenda were those that raged over the right of self-determination. World War II had released powerful psychological and political forces in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Middle East, and the Pacific demanding rights for indigenous peoples and an end to colonial empires. These clashed directly and often violently with the resistance of the imperial powers to surrender control over their possessions.
Considerable pressure had been bought to bear by the majority of states to write provisions into the Charter concerning the Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, recognizing the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these lands were paramount and pledging to work toward self-government and to authorize the creation of an International Trusteeship system within the United Nations. But this represented only a tenuous compromise. The majority within the General Assembly, who themselves had once been victims of imperialism, still were not satisfied, and decided to push further. Instead of having only imperial powers serve on the Trusteeship Council, for example, they elected such well-known vocal opponents of colonialism as China, Iraq, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. They battled over the text of each and every trusteeship agreement, trying to drive the specific conditions toward a greater emphasis on the rights of the peoples of these territories. In this regard, they strongly criticized a number of the early draft proposals from the colonial powers, but praised the commitment from the New Zealand that its agreement with Western Samoa would be “in effect a self-contained Bill of Rights for the inhabitants.
They adamantly rejected the plan by South Africa to annex South-West Africa and passed two important resolutions. One of these sought to take reports about the conditions within the trust territories and place them in the hands of the General Assembly as a whole where they could be discussed by determined and vocal advocates of decolonization. A second resolution called on those members who administered trust territories to convene special conferences of representatives of the peoples living in these lands in order that they might articulate their wishes and aspirations for self-government. Such action, they declared, would help to give practical effect to both the letter and the spirit of the human rights provisions within the Charter itself.
Book Intro: The Evolution of International Human Rights; visions seen; by Paul Gordon Lauren. Edition 2.
This widely acclaimed and highly regarded book, embraced by students, scholars, policymakers, and activists, now appears in a new edition. Using the theme of visions seen by those who dreamed of what might be, Lauren explores the dramatic transformation of a world patterned by centuries of traditional structures of authority, gender abuse, racial prejudice, class divisions and slavery, colonial empires, and claims of national sovereignty into a global community that now boldly proclaims that the way governments treat their own people is a matter of international concern–and sets the goal of human rights “for all peoples and all nations.”
Lauren makes clear the truly universal nature of this movement by drawing into his discussion people and cultures in every part of the globe. In this regard, the book offers particularly remarkable revelations and insights when analyzing the impact of wars and revolutions, non-Western nations, struggles against sexism and racism, liberation movements and decolonization, nongovernmental organizations, and the courage and determination of countless numbers of common men and women who have contributed to the evolution of international human rights.
This new edition incorporates the most recent developments of the International Criminal Court, the arrest of Augusto Pinochet and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, technology and the Internet, the impact of NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, globalization, terrorism, and the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The evolution of international human rights: visions seen
By Paul Gordon Lauren
Edition: 2, illustrated
Published by University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003
ISBN 081221854X, 9780812218541
397 pages – (Copy Page 176 from book below)
Click on link to view the book on google: TheEvolutionHumnaRights