Still, Montana and California, while not equals economically or populationwise, are at least moral equals in the sense of being law abiding, democratic places.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights 1981

By pretending that there is no difference between the United States and Uzbekistan, France and Fiji, Canada and Cameroon, or Britain and Bhutan, there is no hope of keeping rogues off these important committees.

I see an interesting parallel here with the debates about the makeup & need for two houses of Congress - why should VT or IA have the same representation as CA or TX?

But on a more useful track, as John notes, there are ways other than simple sovereignty to compare nations to nations and apples to apples... perhaps all sovereign status should get you is a ticket in the door at the UN...

The two documents differ in significant ways.

The point is that the Universal Declaration represents the view of the majority opinion of these rights. A not-insignficant minority, however, has a different view.

I suppose the UN could try to say that one declaration has priority, but that would probably result in the UN losing a quarter of its members. Not at all sure that'd be an improvment.