Eleanor RooseveltOn the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsdelivered 9 December 1948 in Paris, France演讲者简介：安娜埃莉诺罗斯福(Anna Eleanor Roosevelt，1884年10月11日-1962年11月7日)，美国第32任总统富兰克林德拉诺罗斯福的妻子，曾为美国第一夫人。第二次世界大战后她出任美国首任驻联合国大使，并主导起草了联合国的世界人权宣言。她是女性主义者，亦大力提倡保护人权。

Mr. President, fellow delegates:The long and meticulous study and debate of which this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the product means that it reflects the posite views of the many men and governments who he contributed to its formulation. Not every man nor every government can he what he wants in a document of this kind. There are of course particular provisions in the Declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied. I he no doubt this is true of other delegations, and it would still be true if we continued our labors over many years. Taken as a whole the Delegation of the United States believes that this is a good document -- even a great document -- and we propose to give it our full support. The position of the United States on the various parts of the Declaration is a matter of record in the Third mittee. I shall not burden the Assembly, and particularly my colleagues of the Third mittee, with a restatement of that position here.I should like to ment briefly on the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation. The language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the same as the amendments which were offered by the Soviet delegation in mittee and rejected after exhaustive discussion. Substantially the same amendments he been previously considered and rejected in the Human Rights mission. We in the United States admire those who fight for their convictions, and the Soviet delegation has fought for their convictions. But in the older democracies we he learned that sometimes we bow to the will of the majority. In doing that, we do not give up our convictions. We continue sometimes to persuade, and eventually we may be successful. But we know that we he to work together and we he to progress. So, we believe that when we he made a good fight, and the majority is against us, it is perhaps better tactics to try to cooperate.I feel bound to say that I think perhaps it is somewhat of an imposition on this Assembly to he these amendments offered again here, and I am confident that they will be rejected without debate.The first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which mittee 3 decided required further study, and has remended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights mission. As set out in the Soviet amendment, this provision clearly states group, and not individual, rights.The Soviet amendment to article 20 is obviously a very restrictive statement of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It sets up standards which would enable any state practically to deny all freedom of opinion and expression without violating the article. It introduces the terms democratic view, democratic systems, democratic state, and fascism, which we know all too well from debates in this Assembly over the past two years on warmongering and related subjects are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretations.The statement of the Soviet delegate here tonight is a very good case in point on this. The Soviet amendment of article 22 introduces new elements into the article without improving the mitted text and again introduces specific reference to discrimination. As was repeatedly pointed out in mittee 3, the question of discrimination is prehensively covered in article 2 of the Declaration, so that its restatement elsewhere is pletely unnecessary and also has the effect of weakening the prehensive principles stated in article 2. The new article proposed by the Soviet delegation is but a restatement of State obligation, which the Soviet delegation attempted to introduce into practically every article in the Declaration. It would convert the Declaration into a document stating obligations on states, thereby changing pletely its character as a statement of principles to serve as a mon standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations.The Soviet proposal for deferring consideration of the Declaration to the 4th session of the Assembly requires no ment. An identical text was rejected in mittee 3 by a vote of 6 in for and 26 against. We are all agreed, I am sure, that the Declaration, which has been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time, must be approved by this Assembly at this session.