The Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) came into force on 4 November 1946. The preamble gives a good indication of its mandate, “That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed; That ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war” (UNESCO 1945).

Article I, Paragraph 2 states that the Organization will “recommend such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image” (UNESCO 1945). Article IV, Paragraph B.4 mentions two categories of instruments that can be developed by the organization: “conventions and recommendations”. However, it states that these instruments must be approved by the General Conference and submitted to Member States for their approval. A third category, “declarations”, also exists. It should be noted that, this category was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but has become quite common, especially in recent years (UNESCO 2007a).

Declarations are like recommendations but are named as such because of their importance. Declarations are adopted during the General Conference and because of that solemnity engage governments to implement them in their countries. Although they are part of the body of soft law, they contribute to the development of positive law and provide the scientific community and the general public with a tool to push their respective governments to act.

The first declaration was the Declaration of Principles of International Cultural Cooperation, adopted in 1966 on the occasion of the Organization’s twentieth anniversary. The procedures to follow when drafting a Declaration were adopted by the General Conference at its 33th session (UNESCO 2012). The recommendations and the declarations propose to Member States principles or norms that are susceptible of inspiring national legislations, guidelines, or regulations and provide a common understanding of certain issues. Those normative instruments are seen as fulfilling the standard-setting mission of UNESCO. During the development of the UDBHR questions have been raised about the involvement of UNESCO in the field of bioethics. It is important to mention what the former Director General of UNESCO Koïchiro Matsuura wrote: “From the beginning of the Organization’s activities in this field [bioethics], UNESCO’s General Conference decided to adopt a gradual and prudent approach based on the knowledge available on this complex subject matter, which lies at the interface of many disciplines. Furthermore it decided to take into account the diverse contexts (scientific, cultural, social and economic), in which ethical thinking unfolds in different parts of the world. This approach has led to two important legal consequences. The first is the use of the “declaration” rather than the convention or recommendation for the setting of standards in the field of bioethics. Three important declarations have so far been adopted by UNESCO in this respect. The second consequence is the articulation of broad principles and norms, which could be accepted by all Member States of UNESCO in view of the universal nature of the issues involved” (UNESCO 2007b).

The recent developments in life sciences and especially in genetics have highlighted many ethical implications. Having been involved in ethics through its science mission, the Director General of UNESCO at that time, Federico Mayor , proposed that the Member States endorse a recommendation to prepare an international instrument to protect the human genome. Member States agreed and the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) was created in 1993. The Committee produced the first UNESCO declaration in Bioethics, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997). During the following years, two other declarations were produced: the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (1993) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005).

One of the most important questions that has been raised since the adoption of the UDBHR and even during its development is whether it is possible to draft a text that could be applied across the world. Some argue that universalism is often seen as a western concept and others argue that globalization is an economic concept which can be applied to all nations (Bagheri 2011; Gracia 2014; ten Have and Gordijn 2014).

The UDBHR has been the object of many publications both positive and negative, not only about its universality but also about its relationship to human rights. It has been claimed that, “On the whole, it can be stated that the inclusion of bioethical norms, into human rights norms has not resulted in the collision of such norms, nor has it enhanced the relativity of international law” (Sandor 2008). In a world where cultural relativism is not absent and where constructivism has questioned the foundations of everything called “a norm” or “a principle”, it is not surprising that Declarations of this kind are sometimes seen as unproductive or even useless. But not everybody agrees with such a view. The numerous articles published since the adoption of the various bioethics Declarations, especially since the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights , show that they are also seen as relevant. As Bagheri wrote about the UDBHR, “The fact that this declaration has attracted many experts in the field indicates that they assumed this document will have a significant impact on bioethics worldwide, as an academic discipline, as a social discourse in general and on bio-policy in particular” (Bagheri 2011).